CLAIM FOR COMMISSION

Northern Advocate, 5 July 1928, Page 6

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION

APPEAL FAILS. (Per Press Association—Copyright.) WELLINGTON, This Day. In the case of J. M. Samson v, the White Star Brewery, in -the Court of Appeal yesterday—wherein a claim for £125 commission on the sale of a sub-lease of a hotel was involved —Mr Donnelly, on behalf of the appellant, contended: (1) Section 30 of the Land Agents’ Act did not make a contract for land agency which was not in writing unlawful, but merely barred the agents’ right to sue on the contract. (2) Absence of a written authority might be waived by the principal. (3) The principal was precluded from setting up the Statute when he agreed not to set it up as a defect or where the general principle of estoppal applied. .(4) That the Court was entitled to apply the provisions of the Land Agents’ Act the same as principles and as applied by courts of equity to the Statute of Frauds, in order to prevent the Statute from being made an instrument of fraud. Mr Donnelly then stated that the requirements of a written contract had been waived by the respondent company and the 'company, in effect, agreed not to set up an absence of authority as a defence. This was the -case where the doctrine of estoppal applied. The setting up of want of authority made the Act an instrument of fraud which was far from the intention of the Legislature. Having hoard argument along 'these lines, the Court adjourned. On resuming -the Court stated it did not desire to hear Mr Sargent, counsel for the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with coats on the lowest scale as from a distance.