LAND AGENTS' COMMISSION.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20025, 5 September 1930, Page 8

LAND AGENTS' COMMISSION.

CASE IN CIVIL COURT. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. When a laud agent; has charge of the sale of a property, and spends money on advertising it, and conveying prospective purchasers to the property to inspect; it, and when one of the prospective buyers eventually buys the property through the. agency of another firm, has the original agency any claim on the vendor? This question was the subject of legal argument in the Civil Court yesterday morning, when Evans and Bull, land agents, sued William Isaac Wright, of Eyre Bank, View Hill, Oxford, who had sold his property through Dalgoty and Co., Ltd.

Mr H. P. La wry, !S.M., was on flic Bench, Mr 0. 8. Thomas appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. 11. Macdonald for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that on October 6th, 1928, Wright authorised Evans and Bull to act as his agents for the sale of his farm, comprising 170 acres, situated about six miles from Oxford. Plaintiffs advertised the farm for sale on numerous occasions, interviewed prospective buyers, and accompanied several of them over the farm. On or about May Ist, 1930, the firm introduced Ernest Richard Charles Monk and Cyril Norman Walter Monk, of Oxford, to the defendant, as buyers. As a result of plaintiffs' efforts the Monks became the purchasers of the farm, at a price of £2354. Plaintiffs therefore claimed as commission the sum of £7l 7s. As reasonable remuneration for the work done in connexion with the sale of the farm, an alternative claim, for £7l 7s, was made against Wright. Presenting his case, Mr Thomas said that his clients had been treated in an unfair way. They had expended time and money in helping Mr Wright to sell his farm, and then Sir Wright had gone behind their backs to sell it through Dalgety's. The introduction of the buyer in all circumstances of the case was the effective cause of sale. It, was not necessary that an agent should actually have drawn up a contract in order that he should be entitled to commission.

The defence was that Iho Monks bought the farm through tho agency of Dalgety and Co., and that plaintiffs, not having been able to sell the property, hud no claim on Wright. "Under the circumstances I think that Evans and Bull are entitled to some commission," said the Magistrate, after evidence on both sides of the case had been heard. "Judgment will bo given for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed, with costs."