SALE OF PROPERTY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 136, 10 June 1924, Page 8

SALE OF PROPERTY

A LAND AGENT'S. COMMISSION.

The question as to what constituted an, authority in writing, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Land Agents Act was.dealt with by Mr. W. G. Riddell, 5.M.,; in a judgment delivered in the Magistrate's Court to-day, in -which M. J. Mitchinson, land agent,' of WjelHiigton, claimed'£ls from S. C. Mayall, being balance of commission £25 agreed to be paid by" defendant upon the sale of. his property on or about the 18th August, 1923.

In the course of judgment,-tho Magistrate , said it ■ was proved that plaintiff was verbally instructed to sell "defendant's property for .£llOO. Plaintiff introduced a probable . purchaser, who made an offer of £1050 through plaintiff. Defendant refused to sell at that price, but plaintiff induced Mrs Kelly to. offer £1075. The offer was in writing. ■: .

Defendant in evidence said:—"l arranged with plaintiff about, commission. I wanted £1100 for the property, and plaintiff suggested it-Mrs: Kelly came up to £1075 he would reduce lijs commission to £25. I agreed to-this." The contiact was Jater carried out,- arid the property transferred ; by. .defendant to Mrs. . Kelly, the purchaser. The £10 deposit paid to plaintiff.; was retained by him on account of commission, but defendant refused ; to . pay • the ■ balance, £15; on the aground that plaintiff's appointment to act as agent -was^. not in writing as required by the Land Agents Act, 1921. "The. only question for determination," said the Magistrate, '"is whether the agreement of sale addressed to plaintiff and signed by both the vendor and purchaser can be considered a sufficient appointment in writing to comply with section 30. of the Land Agents Act, 1921. In the present case the contract in writing of .. the 18th August does not contain any direct appointment, by defendant of plaintiff as his agent, as it is in the form of an offer addressed by the purchaser to.plaintiff as land agent. Although not addressed to defendant, it was handed to him by plaintiff, and accepted by defendant as plaintiff's principal and as vendor, and by. such acceptance I think it must be assumed (hat defendant recognised plaintiff as his agent.and agreed to the terms of contract arranged by him." Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff for £15, with £5 costs.

Security for appeal was fixed at ten guineas. ■ ■■• .

Mr. A. J. Mazenprarb appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. Luckie for defendant. ■