SALE OF HOTEL

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 61, 5 December 1928, Page 13

SALE OF HOTEL

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED Reserved judgment was given by Mr. Justice Reed, in the Supreme Court, yesterday in the case in which A. D. Kennedy and Co., Ltd., sued William Hannafin for £7lO commission in connection with the sale of the Brunswick' Hotel, purchased by Mrs. Elizabeth Berryman, from the defendant. His Honour said that the outstanding features of the case were that the plaintiff was never appointed a general agent for the sale of the property, but was really an agent for Mrs. Berryman, in submitting her offer to buy for £37,000. The authority for sale was given on the understanding that there was a purchaser ready and willing to purchase. The plaintiff himself notified that the proposed purchase had gone off. There was immediately an unqualified withdrawal of the authority to sell. Admittedly, this was not done with a view to taking advantage of the plaintiff’s efforts, or as a step in the direction of defeating a claim for commission. Everything that was done afterwards by the plaintiff was done without authority, either express or implied. .. “The fact is,” said His Honour, that he was an enterprising and energetic land agent, endeavouring to bring off a sale, and trusting to luck to being able to collect his commission if business resulted. Experienced as he is, he knew the risk he was running, and endeavoured to get a further authority, but was unsuccessful. . . • . . . . Now it is clear that in the present case there was no general employment. The plaintiff asked for an authority to sell at a specific sum on specific terms and he was granted that authority. He was unable to take advantage of it. Therefore, apart altogether from the provisions of the Land Agents Act, his agency had completely and entirely ceased. No introduction made by him prior to the withdrawal can successfully be made a basis for a claim for commission on a sale subsequent thereto. Of course different considerations would apply, if it were shown that the withdrawal of authority was a trick to deprive the plaintiff of his commission and yet take advantage of his services. In that case an action for damage would probably lie. But there is no such evidence here. Indeed the plaintiff admits that in withdrawing the authority to sell the defendant did so bona fide nnd with no idea of tricking the plaintiff. His contention is that subsequently the came together and a sale was effected and thar the coming together was due to his efforts both before and since the revocation nnd that he is therefore entitled to commission. The answer is that the revocation annulled his written authority, without which the L aa « Agents’ Act presents a complete bar to h' “The plaintiff will with costs according to scale.”