A COMMISSION CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14984, 4 May 1912, Page 5

A COMMISSION CASE.

IMPORTANT DECISION. A decision; of considerable importance to land agents and others was delivered by Mr. Widdowson, S.M., at Dunedin on April 25, in the case Sievwright, Haggitt, and Co. v; McCorkindale and O'Kane, a claim for £131 ss, commisiiion for the sale of defendants' property. The defence was a denial that the sale was effected through the- plaintiffs' agency. After reviewing the evidence the magistrate said: —"I find that the defendants' placed their freehold store property at Waikaia, with stock-in-trade, in the plaintiffs' hands for sal& at £1100 for the freehold and stock at valuation. Through an advertisement of the plaintiffs appearing in the Times, which he saw, Asher (the purchaser) went i o the plaintiffs and obtained particulars of the property and a note of introduction to defendants. In consequence of Ti/hat lie received from the plaintiffs Asher proceeded to Waikaia, and went to defendants' store. He there saw defendant O'Kane, to whom lie introduced himself asid informed him that he had come from JJonedin from information he had got from the plaintiffs. He did not deliver the note of introduction, as he say ho had forgotten to take it with him. Ho was then introduced to o'Kane's partner, McCorkindiale, inspected the premises, and discussed the terms with defendants, and then left. Negotiations were entered into between Asher and tlia defendants, and shortly afterwards Asher bought direct f'rom the defendants, the purchase money for the freehold being £1000, and th<j•• stock at slightly over £2000. Ultimately the sale was completed, but between the parties themselves. There lis no suggestion that any other agent did anything in the matter, and there is not doubt that the plaintiffs' introduction w<vs the efficient cause in bringing about the sale. The amount of commission was not arranged between the parties, and it was therefore an implied term of the plaintiffs' employment that it should be paid at the rate usually paid on such transactions. This was proved to bo the rate fixed by the Chamber of Commerce, which has been charged by the plaintiffs. Judgment will be for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs." It