FINANCE OF COMPANY

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 63, 8 December 1936, Page 2

FINANCE OF COMPANY

Claim For Commission Payment SUM OF £3OO INVOLVED A sum of £3OO alleged to be outstanding on commission payments on the finance of a company was claimed by Campbell Craig and Co., Ltd., brokers, of Auckland, from H. N. Maunder, Ltd., engineers, Wellington, in a case which opened in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). The case will continue to-day. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. H. R. Biss, and defendant by Mr. W. H. Cunningham. In February defendant appointed plaintiff as its agent to obtain for it £lO,OOO either by loan or increase of capital or otherwise to enable defendant to finance a company to manufacture and/or sell electric water heaters, read the statement of claim. Defendant stated the claim agreed to pay a commission _ of £5 per cent, on any sum plaintiff might obtain. Plaintiff claimed it found the money necessary to enable defendant to incorporate a company known as Zip Heaters l , Limited, and plaintiff arranged an advance on loan to the company of £10,0(.(0 by the Southern General Finance Co., Ltd. Plaintiff sought the £5OO commission which it claimed was payable, aud received payment of only £2OO. An alternative claim by plaintiff was that reasonable remuneration for the work done and time expended for defendant was £5OO. Accordingly it claimed the £3OO still unpaid. In the statement of defence, it was denied that the negotiations by the Southern General Finance Co., Ltd., were on behalf of defendant in pursuance of any arrangement which bound defendant to pay plaintiff the amount claimed or any other amount, but on the contrary defendant alleged that plaintiff acted as agent of the Southern General Finance Co., Ltd., to which company Zip Heaters, Ltd., issued 5000 fully-paid £1 preference ebares as consideration for the loan of £lO,OOO. Plaintiff had demanded trom Zip Heaters, Ltd., £5OO for commission, and Zip Heaters, Ltd., while denying liability, eventually paid £2OO to plaintiff. Thereafter plaintiff issued proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, against Zip Heaters, Ltd., to recover tbe same amount as plaintiff was now suing for,J>u_t the proceedings were abandoned. Defendant denied that plaintiff had. rendered any service to defendant for which it was entitled to remuneration. If it should be found that plaintiff did render services to defendant, or to Zip Heaters, Ltd., plaintiff said it had agreed with defendant to look to Zip Heaters, Ltd., exclusively for payment, and that the £-09 paid by the latter company was ample. If it were found that plaintiff was appointed agent of defendant as alleged by plaintiff, added the statement of defence. then defendant said that plaintiff as such agent was guilty of wilful misconduct and breach of duty in the negotiations with the Southern General Finance Co., Ltd., und tliut therefore it WHS not entitled to any remuneration from defendant. Particulars of the. alleged misconduct and breach of duty were that plaintiff acted in the negotiations with the Southern General I mance Co.. Ltd., and in tbe fixing of the terms on which that company found the finance for Zip Heaters, Ltd., in collusion with that company and its directors and agents in opposition to the interests of defendant.