DEPOSITS ON PROPERTY PURCHASE.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17061, 4 February 1921, Page 3

DEPOSITS ON PROPERTY PURCHASE.

AGENTS' RESPONSIBILITY. „ At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., delivered a reserved judgment in favour of defendants in the case. Edno H. Stringer, land agent (Mr T. S. Dacre), v. Charles Ms Lagan, James G. Lagan, and Frank Lagan (Mp G. Harper), a claim for £59 10s for moneys alleged to have been paid by plaintiff to defendants in mistake, in connexion with an abortive contract of sale of house property by defendants. The review of the evidence showed that the defendants, on June 17, 1920, placed a freehold house property in Jlaintiff's hands for sale. Plaintiff, on une 24, effected a sale to Mrs Lizzie Scott, who was not, at the date of sale, and is not now, financial. The purchase money offered was £I2OO and the offer stated that there would be a deposit of £IOO. When plaintiff presented the offer for defendants' acceptance, two of the defendants, James and Charles, expressly stipulated that there must be a deposit of at least £IOO. The plaintiff replied that Mrs Scott had deposited only £SO. After some discussion, plaintiff, to effect a deal, said he ■would give them his own cheque for £IOO, but asked that it should not, in the meantime. be negotiated. Mrs Scott had not deposited any money with him. What had happened' was that Mr Dacre, a solicitor, had told plaintiff that Mrs Scott had sold a house in which she had an equity of £IOO, that Dacre held £IOO as deposit, which, on Mrs Scott's giving authority, he would hand over to plaintiff on Hie comple- | tion of the sale in which Mrs Scott was vendor. A few days later. Stringer | told James Lagan that he had received the £IOO deposit. James then handed plaintiff his cheque for £IOO, receiving in lieu thereof one for £59 10s, the difference representing plaintiff's commission on the sale to Mrs Scott. It was found that, in the case of the I sale in which she was vendor, the lia--1 bilities absorbed the whole of the purchase money, in consequence of which she was unable to pay the deposit of £IOO or to complete .the purchase. The statement made by plaintiff. that he had received the £IOO was, to his knowledge, untrue. He acted on Dacre's statement, and concealed from defendants the true position. After the acceptance of Mrs Scott' 9 offer, defendant bought another house property, which they were compelled to resell, as the result of Mrs Scott's default. This resale was at a substantial profit. Plaintiff sought to recover the amount of the cheque, £59 10s, from defendant, and based his claim on mistake and erf or. The Magistrate held that, as between plaintiff and defendants, it was clearly the duty of the former to carry out his instructions and procure a deposit of £IOO. Having failed to collect the money, he had committed a breach of a duty he owned to defendants, for which he was liable in damages. Quite clearly, plaintiff, in his* zeal to effect a sale, took a business risk, and, having been out in his reckoning, sought to ensure himself against loss at the expense of his principals. Plaintiff could not recover from defendants the balance of the deposit which he paid over to the latter. It was even doubtful, seeing he had induced the defendants to enter into a contract by a representation, knowing it to be false, that he had received the deposit, whether he had any right to retain his commission. Judgment would be recorded for defendants' with the usual costs.