LAND DEAL

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1788, 29 July 1926, Page 4

LAND DEAL

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. JUDGMENT FOR AGENT. (Oavii Correspondent). Judgment was given by the S.M. at the Otorohanga Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the case of R. Cowern (land agent) v. Vicary Bros. —a claim for commission on the sale of a property and the evidence of which had been taken at the last slitting. His Worship in his judgment says: This is a claim for commission by plaintiff, a land agent, on the sale of a property belonging to defendants. One of the defendants wrote ito plaintiff and placed' the property in his hands mentioning a price of £2500 as being wanted. The letter complies with the requirements of the Land Agents’ Act. with regard! to the point raised by defendants that Ithe plaintiff was specially engaged to sell at £2500 and therefore cannot claim commission as he failed to find a purchaser at that price, I think ithe case of Tomlinson v. Miller answers that contention. The defendants named a saim which-he was willing to accept and so constituted a general employment and as that judgment says “should the estate be eventually sold to a purchaser introduced by the agent the latter will be entitled to his commission although the price paid should be less than the sum named ait the time the employment was given.” Defendants raised another point that the plaintiff had only a month wherein to obtain a purchaser. There is a conflict of evidence as to this but, even if such >was the arrangement that condition hardly affects the plaintiff’s claim if, otherwise, it is supported, for if he earned his commission at all he earned it by the work he did within the month from the employment. It appears to me therefore that the question is reduced to this: “Were the plaintiff’s activities' a sufficient cause in bringing about the sale which was affected 'by the defendants directly with Maxwell at £2IOO.

I have the plaintiff’s own evidence which showed that after getting full particulars 'from defendants’ solicitors he interviewed Maxwell on several occasions and certainly impressed him with the desirability of purchasing the property and I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s efforts had the necessary influence on 'Maxwell’s mind. Unfortunately for plaintiff Maxwell was not prepared to g*ve evidence to this effect and was caned by defendants but it is significant that he did not deny that he was so influenced. It is clear, however, from his and Vicary’s evidence that it was not till after plaintiff had interviewed Maxwell that the latter decided 'to raise his previous! best offer of £IBOO to the defendants. 'i

It was also to be noted 'that both defendants and Maxwell recognised at least a possibility of plaintiff being entitled to a commission and a special clause was added to 'the sale agreement that if any commission was payable Maxwell would be responsible. Maxwell, therefore 1 , is decidedly interested in the result of this case. Vicary never denied that plainlff bad done something towards effecting the sale to Maxwell, lie seems to have rested his opposition to plaintiff’s claim mainly or entirely upon the fact that the place was left in his hands for one month only. His peculiar actions on the day of the sale and his letter to plaintiff of 21st June last show this. I am compelled to draw the inference from the evidence 1 that the plaintiffs services were an efficient cause of the^sale. He is, therefore, entitled to judgment for 21 per cent, on £2IOO the admitted purchase price. Judgment is for plaintiff for £52 10s and costs; solicitors, fee £4 3s and Court costs £2 10s.

Mr Patterson asked for leave to ‘appeal and this was granted, the costs being fixed at £l2 and the amount of judgment and costs.