SALE OF HOTEL

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 174, 25 July 1922, Page 2

SALE OF HOTEL

DISPUTE ABOUT COMMISSION. Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., gave judgment this morning in a rather interestin" case arising out of the sale of the Aratapu Hotel. A. J. Wh Maker and Co. (Mr. Durham) sued John Morron (Mr. Sicvens) to recover £100 commission alleged to have been earned. Plaintiffs claimed that authority in writing was given them Ibv defendant to sell the Aratapu Hotel for £1050. In the event of a sale ibeing effected through plaintiffs 1 agency it was agreed that £100 commission was to be paid. Plaintiffs contended that the sale was effected through their asrenev, and therefore claimed payment of the commission. The defence was that the agreement placing the property in plaintiffs' hands was revoked prior to the sale being effected. David C. Ingram deposed that he | also introduced the purchaser to defendant. The price was £1500, and the deposit of £50 was paid to witness. Mr.S'evcns argued that plaintiffs were on'v entit'ed to commission in the event of their having effected the snle at the rr-ico e'ated. Tb" nntbontv was only I to se'l it a sTv-'Hod price for a spec : fic j „-, £inn H» dM not sell for the price spewed. ♦hT'iforc the was revoked, wben lie wns aopointed ntr>'ii as agent on other terms. Mr. Durham nu"t»d numerous authorities \r. support cf his contention tbat plniptifT-s were entitled to thotr commission. Mr McKean. in giving eaid the ori-rinnl price was £1700. That w.i- rc.lnccd to fIRSO. and ibe alteration initialled by defendant. P'niptiffo were unflMe to find a hnver nt that figure. Tnl«r nlo!ptiiT= tolc-raphcd to learn defendant's lowest price. Defendant wired „j v j n _ £ir-nn fis the price, and agreeing to p'ei-tifl"s havine the sole agency. plaintiffs wrote »ekn.vwled_in« the letter, pnming a likely huve,-. and 3rtHin- tb»t the flcOO would carry £100 commission nnd in«'u•"» furniture and rorrlwi'l. Defendant denied he had re ceive.-l that letter, hut it appeared to be flic nn'v eommitniention he did not receive from plaintiffs. His v"'orshiy «„id he nuite believed plaintiffs' evidence that the letter wns posted, also tW. it was not returned unclaimed. T'leintiffs were calVd unoil by Mr r.,Wn-r. to whom they irave detni's. pinin*i* T » then vote to defendant, giving full particuiarq end received in rep'v: "Terms acrentah'e. Wire if coming" FnVonar left for Aratapu. and plaintiff wired defendant tn tbn'. cfT<-ct. Several dnvs Inter, defepd-nt informed -i«;„t;<v<. be had «old the hotel to plaintiffs' client. His Worsbirj «nid it, epoenred that nfter leaving p'ainl'fjV nftlnc. Fnlconnr went to Ingram, who Offered the hotel at n, lower figure The ~"-»'* wns th»t Falconar bought the botei for £I?sn, hut accepted a receipt for £1400. The witness rn„-am n,.,f ir„icnpor defendant agreecT m a sale at £lfiSo. When shown the receipt for £1400 he beeimo cor.fused. Mr McKean mentioned that no f.uthoritv to to sell for £l. r >no was produced. Mr. McKean said he was left ,'p doulit as to the real figure at which <he lmtel was sold. Defendant staled that £13SO was the price arranged on the spot. The receipt given wns for £1400. and Ingram's evidence was that the price arranged was -1550. Mr. McKean said: "There is no doubt that it was plflintiffo who introduced F a W»r to the defepdnnt. nnd there is no do"bt in my mind it was the plnintiffs who were primarily responsible for bringing about the relation of huvcr and seller between Falconar and the defendant. ,Ti,d--,pnt wn« given for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed witli costs £9 13/. Security for appeal was fixed at £15 15/.