AGENT'S COMMISSION.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 242, 13 October 1925, Page 6

AGENT'S COMMISSION.

! COURT AWARDS CLAIM. : SECOND AGENT INTEBVERED QUESTION OF SIGNDfG UP. "It i≤ the duty of a laud agent ia order to entitle him to his communis" to find a purchaser willing to purchaie and capable of purchasing a property" said Mr. E. C- Cutten, S.M., at the . Magistrate's Court to-day, in ghijj™ judgment to John Furness (Mr. Tvu. herberti. against lilrg.) Elk Jhndol (Mr. Bennett i, for £3S 2/6, commission on the sale of a property. J The defendant put a property in tie plaintiff's hands for sale. "PlaintiE found a purchaser, showed the purchaser and his wife the premises and both wera satisfied. An agreement was prepared and plaintiff stated that he would esU the following day to pay the deposit ajii sigu. He did not return; but another agent persuaded the purchaser to pay him the deposit and obtained his ture to an agreement for sale. The second agent then waited upon the de-- • fendant and obtained her signature to i the agreement. i The purchaser had stated in evidence ' that the plaintiff took him to the defendant's house and introduced him to the defendant. He said he and hy wife were satisfied and told Mr. Fnrnesa he would come back and pay the deposit and sign the agreement the next day. The magistrate, in his judgment, considered the sharp intervention of the second land agent came too late. The ! practice was for a land agent to find a ' person with a general desire to purchase a property and persuade him to i purchase it. It was a matter of finding a likely purchaser then makinthe necessary impression upon his mini In this case the plaintiff persuaded the purchaser to purchase this particuI lar property, the evidence of that fact I being the land agent's evidence of what took place, the purchaser's evidence to ■ this effect, and the fact that he did > purchase the property at the price and on the terms he agreed with, plaintiff. Although land agents, in order both to clinch the matter, and to afford the best I proof of the part they had had in jL. ! usually obtained the purchaser's sigßi' ; ture to an agreement, or accompanied I the purchaser to a solicitor's office whert an agreement wag signed; yet, except ; for the purpose of attaining these ends, !it was not a necessary part of the work jof a land agent to prepare an agree, ment and obtain the purchaser's eijma* ' ture to it. ' c In this case the relation of the nuyee and seller was brought about by the plaintiff and he was entitled to the commission claimed. Judgment wm accordingly given for the amount claimed and costs.