The property, originally listed for $3.5 million, had sat on the market for months before James Conquer called Croon and said he knew a buyer who could be interested in it.
Although there is a dispute over when the agent disclosed that the purchaser was his soon-to-be wife, the High Court at Auckland heard yesterday that it was agreed Croon was aware of it before signing the sale-and-purchase agreement.
Croon's lawyer, Peter Webb, told the court that his client was prepared to lease from the new owner the land which the bloodstock business used at $80,000 a year for five years.
Webb said that during a meeting between the parties, Croon suggested the property's price would be reduced by $400,000 to $3.1 million but that he would get the lease of the land for five years.
However, Maureen Conquer's lawyers and accountant would not have a "bar of anything in writing which smacks of a lease", Webb said.
"It was at that stage an oral understanding was entered into. The price would be $3.1 million but that included [Croon's] right to occupy and use the working part of the property for five years," Webb said.
Webb said Croon did not take legal advice until after the property was sold and told the court his client went into the deal "very naively".
The property was sold and in December - after coming back from their honeymoon - the Conquers drafted a lease agreement and sent it to Croon, said the defendants' lawyer Christina Bryant.
Croon then told the Conquers he believed the five-year lease was already included in the purchase price, which they say is the first they had heard of this idea.
Relations between Croon and the Conquers went "downhill" and the breeder was given notice to vacate the land.
Croon then filed his claim in the High Court, alleging the defendants made misrepresentations to induce him to enter into a contract.
Croon also says he had a mistaken understanding when entering into the deal and alleged the defendants knew this was the case but did not put him right.
Croon also alleges James Conquer betrayed his duty to him.
Yesterday Webb applied to Justice Susan Thomas for an interim injunction, which would let Croon stay on the land until this wider dispute is resolved. Bryant opposed this and said the alleged oral agreement before the sale was never reached.
Bryant said there was no evidence that Mrs Conquer or the trustees who ultimately bought the property knew when they made the purchase that Croon believed he would be able to stay on the land for five years at no extra cost.
Bryant said Croon's claim was weak and based on oral evidence without any corroborating documents.
She indicated the Conquers want Croon's business off their land: "They have people on the property they don't want to be there and they don't trust," Bryant said.
Justice Thomas reserved her decision on the interim injunction.
