COMMISSION CLAIMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18280, 22 December 1922, Page 9

COMMISSION CLAIMS.

CASES BEFORE MAGISTRATE.

QUESTION OF "SOLE AGENCY."

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

The interpretation of the term " solo agency," i n respect of the sale of property, was involved in a case in which judgment was given by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. .Milburn and Noton, Limited (Mr. Holmden), estate agents, claimed from A. G. Pickmere, as trustee of the estate of R. Pickmere, of Otahuhu (Mr. T. Baxter), £24 8s commission alleged to be due on the sale of a property. The magistrate said that plaintiffs were land agents, and were employed by defendant to disposo of three sections of land. On August 8 defendant signed a letter of authority instructing plaintiffs to submit the sections for sale by auction. The letter contained a> clause by which defendant agreed to give plaintiffs the sole agency for the property from the date of the letter till one calendar month from the date of auction. In addition, plaintiffs signed one of plaintiffs' printed forms of authority to sell, which provided that in the event of a sale being arranged through plaintiffs' agency, defendant would pay the usual Auckland rate of commission. The form, was not dated. The sections were submitted at auction, but were not sold. Subsequently one was sold through plaintiffs' agency, and on that sale plaintiffs had been paid commission. Defendant sold the two remaining sections, the sale not being affected through plaintiffs' agency. yHowever, they claimed commission on the ground that they were appointed sole agents and that the salo was effected during the period of their sole agency. Mr. McKean said that evidence was called by plaintiffs with a view to establishing a custom by which an agent was entitled to commission if he were given a sole agency, and his principal sold the property during the period of the sole agency. The evidence amounted merely t'i an expression of opinion by the witnesses, who were land agents, as to their rights in the event of a sale by a principal during a period of sole agency. After referring to other points Mr. McKean said that it. was not on the promise contained in the authority to sell that plaintiffs relied. If the letter of August 8 was a valid agreement, it was, in the magistrate's opinion, nothing more than an agreement not to place the property in the hands of any other agent for salo within one calendar month of the date of the auction. For breach of such an agreement a principal might be liable in damages. There was no such breach in the present case. The condition upon the performance of which the plaintiffs were entitled to commission was the arrangement of a sale by means of their agency. As this condition was not performed the magistrate was of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to this commission claimed. Ju.dgm.erif, was given for defendant.

AGENT'S CLAIM UPHELD.

SALE OF TEA ROOMS.

Decision in another dispute concerning commission was also given by Mr. McKean. Arthur Raven, land agent (Mr. Martelli). claimed from W. G. Prinn (Mr. Osburne-Liliy). £41 ss, commission on the sale of the business of the Piccadilly Tea Rooms. Plaintiff had obtained an authority in writing from defendant to sell the business. Mr. McKesn said that plaintiff introduced to defendant a client who made through plaintiff various offers for the business. Finally, a certain offer was m.-ide. Defendant said he could not accept it then, and plaintiff would have to wait until the following Monday. On the Friday, the client's solicitor was informed thst the offer was standing over until the Monday. Defendant asserted that ho definitely refused the offer on the day it was made, but the magistrate believed plaintiff's statement. On the Saturday morning another agent who knew of the negotiations that had been proceeding submitted, on brfialf of the same client, an offer on the same terms as those submitted by plaintiff. Defendant eventually gave this agent an option, and the client finallv became the purchaser. Defendant asserted that he was not aware that the second acent'B offer was on behalf of the same client. The magistrate said he did not think there was any doubt that it was through plaintiff's instrumentality that the sale wns effected. He was of opinion that plaintiff wns entitled in terms of his authority to be paid the amount he claimed.' Although plaintiff did not actually complete the transaction the sale was, in the magistrate's opinion., directly the result of the agency and of the reliance placed upon his valuation of the business by the purchaser's solicitors. Judgment was for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.

ANOTHER COMMISSION CASE. SALES OF FURNITURE. A claim for £50 4s, commission alleged to be due on sales of furniture was made by M. Chisholm (Mr. Leary) against Richard Arthur. Ltd. (Mr. Hall), before Mr. McKean. Plaintiff claimed that the rate agreed upon was 10 per cent, on all business introduced by him. Defendant's manager contended that the 10 per cent, commission was only in respect of the original order. After hearing the evidence, the magistrate said he preferred plaintiff's evidence to that given for defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed.