WOMAN’S CLAIM FOR REFUND OF DEPOSIT UPHELD BY COURT

Evening Star, Issue 26135, 24 June 1947, Page 4

WOMAN’S CLAIM FOR REFUND OF DEPOSIT UPHELD BY COURT

lu his reserved decision in the case in which Helen" Muriel Myles (Mr 18. A. King) proceeded, against Kinmont and Newey Ltd. (Mr H. S. Adams), land agents, Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., gave judgment in the Magistrate’s Court to-day in favour of Mrs Myles for £32 18s, which included £1 13s already paid into court. Costs amounting to £4 2s were also allowed to the plaintiff. The claim was for £SO, paid as a deposit, on a property on behalf of Mrs Mvles and £5 os damages suffered by her by reason of the wilful refusal of the defendant company to repay, the £SO. The Magistrate said Mrs Myles agreed to sell the property at £1,350, hut she was advised by the registrar of the Land Sales Court_ that the Crown valuation was £1.050. On the ml vice of her solicitor, she decided not to proceed with an application to the Lund Sales Court for sale of the pronerty, and the intending purchaser was notified. Action was brought by him against Mrs Myles for refund of his deposit of £SO and £5 5s damages', and judgment was given in his favour. “ 1 have very carefully considered and weighed all the evidence, and have come to the very definite conclusion that the defendant company represented to the plaintiff that consent of the Land Sales Court would he given, and that if there were a reduction it would not he more than £2O or £30,” said the Magistrate. It was a case of an experienced lund agent dealing with a woman who had apparently little or no business training. The Magistrate 6aid he did not agree with the contention that on the signing of the contract a definite contract was made, and that whatever happened the agent was entitled to commissioif. Under the Act he was debarred from any commission or reward until the application was made for the consent of the Land Sales Court. At the hearing the Magistrate intimated that he considered invoking the equity and good conscience clause of section 100 of the Magistrates’ Court Act, and af er further consideration he saw no reason .to alter that view. Kinmont was allowed £ls by way of commission.