Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

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. ■,

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNCH19171102.2.23

Bibliographic details

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

Word Count
470

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

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