MID-CITY LEASE

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 47, 18 November 1932, Page 8

MID-CITY LEASE

Commission Claim for £260 VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT Claiming to have secured a binding contract for a ten years’ lease of Victoria House, Victoria Street, at an annual rental of £26QO, H. G. Rutter and Co., land agents, Wellington, sought to recover in the Supreme Court yesterday £260 commission from James Edward. Williams, settler, Wellington. Judgment was given for the defendant. Mr. Justice MacGregor was on the Bench. Mr. W. P. Shorlatid was for the plaintiff company, and Mr, S. A. Wiren for the defendant. The plaintiff company claimed that, acting as defendant’s agent, they procured a 1 binding contract, between the Beautiful Karori Extension Co., Ltd., and defendant, in terms of which the Extension Company bound itself to a lease from defendant for a period of ten years of the property known as Victoria House, at an annual rental of £2600. The . plaintiff company claimed £260 commission, or alternatively the same amount for work done in procuring the contract.,.’ ■ Defendant denied the claims made by plaintiff, and contended that if it were held that Rutter and Co. procured the contract as agent, defendant was induced to execute it by reason of statements made by H. G. Rutter and an employee of the firm that the Beautiful Karori Extension Company was a good and strong company and able to carry out the contract. Those statements, defendant alleged to be false, and made recklessly, and negligently, without sufficient inquiry, and in breach of plaintiff’s duty as agent. He further submitted that Rutter and Co. did not procure a contract signed by a person able to carry out and complete same. Evidence was given by H. G. Rutter and an employee, Warwick Percival G. Ladd, that defendant signed the contract with the Karori company at their office. They did not advise defendant that the Karori company was a good and strong one, but a list of shareholders was shown to Mr. Williams, and it included several substantial men. The arrangements for the lease were completed, and it was never suggested that at the end of January the Karori company was not in a position to carry out the contract. Defendant gave evidence on the lines stated, and said he saw no list of shareholders of the Karori company. All he did was to give Mr. Rutter to understand that a commission would be paid if the contract was completed. As a matter of fact, it had since been cancelled. After 1 hearing evidence and having correspondence and documents submitted, his Honour found for the defendant, with costs.