COMMISSION EARNED.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 1163, 2 November 1917, Page 4

COMMISSION EARNED.

AGENT'S CLAIM SUCCEEDS. FREEBAIRN v. MEREDITH AND CO. Reserved decision was given by his Honour Mr Justice Sim in the Supreme Court 10-day in the case! 'in which Andrew Freebairn, broker! and commission agent, Svdnev, claimed £212 19/6 from G. S. Meredith and Co., merchants, Waimate, . for commission on the sale of potatoes. The defendants counterclaimed for £1037 8/1, being the loss accruing from the shipment of a quantity of swede turnips, the shipping being due, it was alleged, to wrong information supplied by the i plaintiff as to the duty payable on swedes in Australia. At the bearing, Mr Kirkcaldie ap- I peared for the plaintiff and Mr Kinnerney, with Mr Hunter, for the defendants. This morning Mr A; F. Wright appeared to receive judgment on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr Hunter for the defendants. His Honour said that bv the terms I of the contract 200 tons of the pota- < toes were to be shipped by steamer - in each of the months of Julv, Aug- < ust, and September. Of the* total < quantity 270 tons were shipped in i July and 330 tons in August. The < plaintiff arranged with the firm of I McHugh's in Sydney, to purchase the < potatoes, but on the shipment of i 270 tons instead of 200 tons, Mc- 1 Hugh's terminated the contract and 1 refused to accept lelivery of the ] potatoes. His Honour thought that : in the circumstances that plaintiff f was entitled to recover a commis- t sion on the sale. The rule was that , if an agent was employed to sell, 1 without making any special condi- * tion involving payment of his commission only upon actual completion i of the purchase, or upon the per- ; formance of some other specified ' condition, the agent was entitled to ( payment of his remuneration so ( soon as he had procured a person i approved by the vendor to enter i into a binding contract of purchase, i upon terms warranted by his auth- c orily, and that he was not concern- ] ed with what afterwards took place between the parties. The plaintiff < was not responsible for the breach < of the contract and did his best to ; get it carried out. He was therefore i entitled to recover commission and judgment was given in his favour ] on the claim for the amount claimed, t In respect to the counter-claim, ( his Honour said there was no auth- i ority for the defendant's contention ( that there was any relationship be- i tween the parties that imposed a t duty on plaintiff to be careful with t regard to information supplied. The i plaintiff was entitled therefore to ( judgment on the counter-claim. t Judgment was entered for plain- ] tiff on both the claim and counter- j claim, with costs according to scale on the amount claimed. ■,