COMPLICATED LAND DEAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 107, 27 June 1911, Page 5

COMPLICATED LAND DEAL.

A DOUBLE EXCHANGE. AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. On June 9th, Mr W. G. Kenrick, S.M., heard, at the Stratford Magistrate’s Court a claim by Kemp and Sawle against James Robinson for commission on the sale of a property. Mr Anderson appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Weir (Eltham) for defendant.

After hearing the evidence, the S.M. reserved judgment, which was read in Court this morning by the Clerk of tlic Court, Mr If. Bird. The judgment is as follows:,—-This is a claim by the plaintiffs for £GO commission for work and journeys performed as commission agbnts in the sale of a certain property and business owned by the defendants, namely a commission at the rate of 21 per cent, on £2IOO. There is no dispute as to tiio amount of the commission, hut the defendant denies having employed the plaintiffs to sell his business anti property. It is proved the following exchanges of properties wore made and completed, namely, Kemp and Perry sold tlioir Te Aroha property to James Kenny, and James Kenny sold h,is property at Omona. to Janies Robinson the defendant, and James Robinson 1 sold his property and business at Eltham to Kemp and Perry. It is proved that the plaintiffs, Kemp and Sawle had a written authority from Kemp and Perry to sell their Te'Aroha property, and f lic commission was also agreed on. Robinson, the defendant, prior to the above transaction had placed, and subsaquontly withdrawn, his business and property from a Mr Hodge in whose hands he had placed it for sale. Robinson in his evidence silys Kenny wanted him to buy his (Kenny’s) place, but he declined until ho could dispose of his own business. Robinson further says ho told Kenny he had been looking at Kemp and Perry’s place at To Aroha, hut would not have it, hut if Kenny took it he would take Kenny’s place, as he could dispose of his place then to Kemp and Perry. The evidence proves Robinson introduced Kenny to Kemp and Sawle and to Kemp, of Kemp and Perry, and told them of the above proposals. Kemp and Sawle say they did not mention coinmission to Robinson, but ho (Robinson) said: “I will not heat you for your commission; I know I will have to pay it.” Tliis Robinson dories, and says ho expressly refused to pay commission. Kenny also says he refused to pay commission when visiting the Te Aroha property with Kemp, of Kemp and Sawle, and this is admitted r>v Komi), and they have made no claim for commission from Kenny. 1 am of opinion the evidence proves that Robinson introduced Kenny to Kemp and Sawle to give them the opportunity of selling to Kenny, Kemp and Perry’s property; that Robinson had already arranged with Kenny that if he bought Kemp and Perry’s place ho (Robinson) would buy his (Kenny’s) place, subject to the price being agreed on between them. I think the visit made by Kemp and Sawle to Robinson and Kenny at their respective homos was to try to got Robin-

son to finally settle on the price and buy Kenny’s inoDcrty, thereby enabling Kemp and Sawle to sell the To Aroha. property to Kenny, which, from the evidence, Kenny would not buy unless he disposed of his own. The work done - in the matter was necessary for Kemp and Sawle to do to enable them to soli their clients’ (Kemp and Perry’s) property at To Aroha. With regard to the sale of defendant Robinson’s property to Kemp and Perry, Kemp and Sawle say they did not ask for or mention commission to Robinson, but Robinson voluntarily said : “I will not beat you for your commission.” Now, the admitted fact that Kenny bad refused to pay commission should have made Kemp and Sav.de mention tlie commission to Robinson. As the evidence stands at present, I have Robinson’s absolute denial that he used the words that, ho would not boat them for commission and ho further says ho expressly refused to pay any at the first interview. Kemp and Sawle made no claim or reference to commission at the time of the completion of the sales. They say they have a special written agreement with their clients (Kemp and Perry) to pay commission. The only direct evidence given by the plaintiffs that Robinson ‘authorised thorn to soil his property is Kemp’s evidence that Robinson authorised him to sell at the first interview. Robinson says that ho told Kemp and Sawle that Kemp and Perry would take his place if Kenny bought theirs, and lie says Kemp and Perry did buy In’s place at the original price ho bail given them. I think the plaintiffs have failed ito prove that defendant Robinson agreed to pay commission on the sale of his place, and tlie evidence does not. prove they effected the sale. The solicitors for the parties prepared the contracts between then;. The work they have done in the whole transactions was necessary for thorn to do to effect the sale of Kemp and Perry’s To Aroha property. I think in these, what have been termed three-cornered sales, the land agents should make 1 a point of .having their authorities in writing and the commission to bo paid and fm whom it is to fie paid. Judgment is for the defendant with counsel’s fee ;C3 and costs £*i os.