Supreme Court Real Estate Institute’s Appeal Over Salesmen Succeeds

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31841, 20 November 1968, Page 14

Supreme Court Real Estate Institute’s Appeal Over Salesmen Succeeds

An appeal by the Canter-1 bury-Westland branch of theb Real Estate Institute against | ia decision of Mr J. D. Kinder,! jS.M., in which he had igranted certificates of appro-! jval as real estate salesmen!; ; to three Ashburton company j ’directors, was allowed by the jChief Justice, Sir Richard ‘Wild, in a reserved decision;

in the Supreme Court, Tim-; jaru. 11 I Mr W. G. P. Cuningham, of I: ! Christchurch, appeared for! the institute. Mr B. J. Petrie,’ .of Timaru, with him Mr L.'i |K. Cooney, of Ashburton. I, ; appeared for Frank Edwin jAmos, a land agent of Ashburton. who had successfully i applied to the Magistrate to ; i employ Messrs Joseph John

| Walls, a general manager, I Cecil Dawson, an accountant and Alexander Morgan ! Davidson, a sales manager, all three being directors of C. E. Bailey, Lid, Ashburton, las real estate salesmen. Mr Cuningham submitted that the three men, because of their lack of practical experience in the real estate business, were not fit for employment as real estate salesmen. Their employment was a device to get around the provisions of the Real Estate Agents Act and that was not in the public interest. Mr Petrie submitted that the institute should have j opposed the renewal of Mr [Amos’s licence. The integrity, | igeneral knowledge, judgment! and business experience of[ the three men were sufficient; Ito satisfy the requirements as to their fitness under the Act. Mr Amos would have com- | plete control of the business tand would be responsible for : all contracts. His Honour said there 'were some very unusual features in the employment of . the three men. ' “The three employees who [are to pay the costs of the i applications and who are to Ibe the employees of this declining, one man. home-run . business are already fully engaged as working directors [of a substantial company ’ business.” “Secondly, all the commissions on lettings and the collection of rentals go to the employees. “When to that is added the fact that the deed makes no provision as to the division of any commissions between the three employees there is a strong inference that the letting and rent collection part of the business would virtually become part of the company, and it seems inevitable that other things would follow. “Thirdly, the respondent, Mr Amos, has bound himself to employ the employees for so long as he holds a licence. The deed gives hint the power of direction and control but he has no right to dismiss any of them whatever they may do or fail to do. This is not the kind of employment that is contemplated by the act.” Those factors would certainly produce confusion in the public mind but also it was impossible to resist the inference that those factors would lead to the substance of the real estate business passing to the company, which had staff and facilities but no licence. “In all the circumstances I reach the conclusion that having regard to Hie interests of the public the general manager, sales manager and accountant of the company, all of them directors of the company, are not proper persons within the meaning of | the act to be employed as : salesmen by the respondent,”] his Honour said in granting the appeal with SBO costs and disbursements to the appellant.