CLAIM FAILS

Southland Times, Issue 22362, 29 June 1934, Page 9

CLAIM FAILS

ALLEGED COMMISSION DISPUTE BETWEEN LAND AGENTS. When a land agent is the indirect means of effecting a sale of property can he claim commission? This question Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M., was asked to determine yesterday when in the Magistrate’s Court Meek and Oughton, Limited, of Invercargill, land agents, claimed from Tamblyn, Rhodes and Jamieson, of Dunedin, land agents, the sum of £53 15/- for commission allegedly due in respect of the introduction of business by the plaintiffs and performed by them for the defendants at their request, which business resulted in sales of property. Mr G. C. Cruickshank appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr C. B. Barrowclough, of Dunedin, for the defendants. In opening his case, Mr Cruickshank said that the claim was made by one firm of land agents against another. It was alleged by the plaintiff that an agreement had been suggested by the two firms that when, through the combined efforts, a sale resulted the commission should be divided. No written agreement was made, but confirmation of the arrangement finally come to had been forthcoming by letter from the defendant firm. One of the defendant’s salesmen called upon plaintiff. Oughton, whom he asked if he had a certain property which might satisfy a prospective client down from Dunedin with him. Oughton replied that a property belonging to a man named Muir might prove suitable. Hackett (the prospective client), Oughton and the salesman went out to inspect Muir’s property, but it did not suit. Muir then mentioned that a property at the back of his, which belonged to a man named Robinson, might be acceptable. The four men looked at this place and were impressed. A sale ultimately was effected and the plaintiff firm contended it was entitled to a share of the commission, for the sale of Robinson’s property would not have resulted had not Oughton taken Hackett out to inspect Muir’s place. Even if the Court held there had been no agreement between the two firms, counsel submitted that there was ample authority to support a claim for compensation for the work done. After evidence had been given by the partners in the plaintiff firm, Mr Barrowclough, in opening his defence, said it was not disputed that some arrangement had been made between the two firms, but the actual details were in doubt. It was also admitted that if Meek and Oughton had supplied full particulars of any property in Southland and, as a result of the efforts of the defendant firm, a sale eventuated, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a share of the commission. The most important aspect of the problem, however, lay in the fact that the plaintiffs had no definite authority to sell. There could be no question of any sharing of commission without that authority. Even if the Court did hold there was actually an authority, the plaintiffs could not recover unless they were the effective cause of the sale. That was not so.

Evidence was tendered for the defendants.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said he had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could not substantiate their claim, for they had not possessed full authority to sell the properties of which they forwarded particulars to the defendants. Furthermore, the agreement between the litigants was so nebulous that the plaintiffs could not possibly succeed.

Judgment was accordingly given for the defendants with £3 3/- solicitor’s fee and 15/- witness’s expenses.