SHARES TRANSACTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19762, 8 October 1927, Page 13

SHARES TRANSACTION.

AGENT FAILS IN DUTY. MISREPRESENTATION OF PRICE. COURT REVERSES DECISION. The law relating to principal and agent was recited in a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court yesterday in the appeal by W. J. Rainger (Mr. Johnstone) against a decision by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. Respondent xvas L. H. Rogers (Mr. Inder). The original Magistrate's Court action was brought by appellant, who alleged that respondent had sold him shares in the Buller Goldmining Company tinder misrepresentation. j The Judge said the only material misrepresentations of fact alleged were thai the lowest price at which the vendor would dispose of the shares was 3s 6d s share, and that there were no calls due on them. The magistrate's finding that misrepresentation concerning the calls had not been proven was unchallenged. Bnt > a point which did not appear to have been raised or to have been considered by the magistrate, was that respondent, acting as agent, bought 300 shares at 2s 6d and sold them to appellant at 3s 6d, stating the latter was the price demanded by Mr. Knight, a director of the company. "Respondent was also a director of the company," said His Honor, "and he knew that Knight was anxious to sell at almost any price, and that he would certainly accept 2s 6d, and perhaps less." Although the notes of evidence were not as full as they might be, it was apparent that respondent had acted as agent to appellant and was, therefore, under the Saw relating to principal and agent, subject to the following obligations(l) That he should acquire the shares he had been commissioned to buy, at " the most advantageous price at which they were procurable; (2) that he should not make a secret profit out of his agency. Clearly respondent bad failed in both respects, but to consider only the one claim made in the lower Court would suffice, and appellant was entitled to recover £ls upon the count of misrepre. sentation as to the lowest price at which the vendor would sell. The appeal was allowed, with £7 7i costs, and the case was referred back to the Magistrate's Court in order that judgment should be entered for appellant for £ls, with or without costs, as the Court considered fit. %