SALE OF BUSINESS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 144, 16 December 1930, Page 4

SALE OF BUSINESS

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION

Without calling on counsel for' plaintiff to address the Court, Mr. E. Page, S.M., yesterday gave judgment for James Russell Simpson in the case in which he claimed £300 commission, or alternatively £300 for alleged breach of contract from Fanny Archibald and Robert L. Archibald, the trustees of the estate, of the late Thomas Reid Archibald. The claim arose out of the winding up of the affairs of the late Mr. Archibald, the proprietor of the business .of M'Lean and Archibald. On 31st March, the defendants, as trustees of the estate, authorised and instructed the plaintiff to undertake the liquidation of the business of M'Lean and Archibald on the basis of 5 per cent, on realisations. The authority and instructions were confirmed by a written memorandum and it was this memorandum which formed the basis of the action. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate said that the business was eventually disposed of in two lots. Tho electrical portion of the assets was sold to A. and T. Burt, and the balance to one of the trustees, Robert Archibald.. The' trustees had, by their payments into Court, evidently recognised their liability in respect1 of the sale to A. and T. Burt, but they contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to commission iv respect to the sale to Robert Archibald. It was clear, Mr. Page said, that having been appointed in this way the plaintiff carried out a fair amount of work. He had obtained the offer from A. and T. Burt's. and for substantially the balance of the assets he had got an offer from the Stewart, Hardware .Company. This latter offer had not been accepted, although the plaintiff himself, had favoured it because it was a, cash one, where it was recognised that an offer, which had been received in the meantime from Robert Archibald, would involve terms. "It seems to me clear that the realisations included the sale to Robert Archibald, and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to commission in respect to that sale," concluded the' Magistrate. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for £257 13s Od. and costs amounting to £17 15s, less £4S 9s already paid into Mr. B. F. Coningham and Mr. W. Heine appeared for tho plaintiff, aud Mr. R. E. Harding for the defendants.