SALE OF HOTEL

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVII, Issue 23127, 15 February 1945, Page 2

SALE OF HOTEL

Claim For Commission

Decision Reserved

A claim for £54/7/- by James Samson and Co., Dunedin, from G. P. Barclay for commission in respect of the sale of the Cave Hotel was heard before Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M., in the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The Magistrate reserved his decision.

Appearing for claimant, Mr A. G. C. Neill said that at a race meeting in Christchurch Barclay had made himself known to Samson, to whom he had given the conditions of sale. When Samson returned to Dunedin he advised Barclay by telegram that he was sending a prospective buyer, a man named Jolly. No sale had been effected. Later Samson had approached a Mr McColl and in the presence of McColl he telephoned to Barclay from Dunedin. When McColl arrived at Cave to inspect the hotel Barclay refused the letter of introduction from Samson and said that he would not do business through this agent. He asked McColl to call back in a day or two. The hotel was then sold. An application for commission by Samson elicited a response by telegram frdm Barclay’s solicitor saying that Samson was not recognised in the matter. Since the hotel was sold to McColl, since McColl came from Dunedin, and since the particulars of the sale had been given to Samson by Barclay, there could be no doubt that the sale had been effected through the agency of Samson. E. A. McColl said that he had a telephone conversation with Barclay from Samson’s office after the latter had said a word or two. He told Barclay that he would inspect the hotel on Wednesday. When he arrived at Cave Barclay would not accept the letter of introduction from Samson, and said that he had never placed the hotel in Samson’s hands. McColl said he had argued with Barclay all day and a few days later had taken over the hotel for the remainder of the lease of two years and four months at a rental of £7 a week and £2OO for the good will and stock and furniture at valuation. Not on the Market Defendant said that he met Samson at the races and told him that the hotel was not on the market. He had not given an option to either Jolly or McColl, and he had told McColl in the telephone conversation that the hotel was not for sale. At no time had Samson been commissioned to sell the property. No matter what moral grounds there might be for the payment of the commission, and no matter how reprehensible the conduct of defendant might be, the case would have to be decided on whether Samson had been given authority which complied with the Act to sell the property, said Mr M. A. Raymond, who appeared for Barclay. According to the statute, a written agreement, signed by the seller, was necessary to constitute a proper authority.