BULLS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19348, 1 July 1925, Page 3

BULLS.

SALE OF A MOTOR CAR. CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. AN INTERESTING CASE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) A case of interest to motor traders hencra’Jy occupied the attention of Mr R. M. Watson. S.M., at. Bulk, on Saturday. J. E. Cooksey, (Mr Mackay). I motor engineer at Bulls, claimed from Perry s Ltd. (Air Hill), motor garage proprietors at Feilding, the sum of £65 for commission earned on the sale of a large and valuable Crossley saloon motor car. M.r Mackay in opening for plaintiff stated that defendant’s manager, P. S. Enting. entered into an agreement with plaintiff under which that latter was to interest the people in the district in the Crossley car and to ring the company’s office when he had a prospective buyer, when the manager would bring a car across to Bulls and endeavour to effect a sale. This arrangement was partly verified by letter from the company, in which it stated plaintiff was a sub-agent and the conmiis- | sions for the dilfcrently priced cars wore separately mentioned, extending from £25 for a. £lSt) car to £5O for a £BB5 car. Plaintiff interested several probable purchasers and eventually introduced to Enting a buyer whom Entiug took to Wellington, where defendant’s principal, J. R. Perry, was interviewed and the car mentioned was sold to the buyer, the retail price being £1135. The plaintiff having carried out his part of the contract claimed £65 commission—this amount being arrived at on the basis of the commissions mentioned in the letter. The defendant company refused to pay any commission. Plaintiff gave evidence bearing out counsel’s statement. To his ‘Worship: If after his getting in touch with the Ellis’s defendant had come out there without his knowledge and met him ami sold a car, he did not know whether he would be legally entitled to commission but he would expect it and he would ask for it and if refused he would give up the agency. T. U. Alan McKenzie, of Marton, who was also appointed a sub-agent produced the letter he received which mentioned that all the agent had to do was to ring up Feilding in the event of their having a prospect and defendant’s manager would immediately bring out a car and complete the sale. There was no reference to the commission being varied if a second-hand car was taken in part payment. If he had been expected to effect the actual sale of the car ho would not have accepted the sub-agency as the commissions mentioned was so small. He woulil require about twice the commission before going to the trouble of effecting the actual sale. To his Worship: I consider Cooksey is entitled to his commission from the mere fact that he got the Ellis’s interested in the Crossley cars. G. F. Ellis stated that plaintiff gave him literature on the Crossley car aud eventually introduced him to Enting at plaintiff’s garage at Bulls. Apart from the actual introduction he could not remember that plaintiff made any further statement. He purchased the car and a small cut was made on the retail price, £ll‘»s. Mr Hill, for the defendant company, stated that the company was not liable for commission as plaintiff had not sold the car and the arrangnient was that there was no commission it secondhand cars were given in—also in any case plaintiff bad lost his right to commission on account of the long delay in letting three weeks pass after meeting Ellis before advising the defendant that he had a prospect, ami further that the introduction was not an effective introduction but was only an introduction between man and man. Peter Sydney Enting, manager for defendant company, gave evidence in support of counsel s statement. He had heard from ‘Wellington that Ellis wanted a car, and on September 6 last be sent his foreman out to interview him, but he failed to do so. ‘Witness himself then decided to proceed to <ee Ellis and while, passing througn Bulls plaintiff introduced Ellis to him. T<. Mr Mackay: Bis prin upal, Mr .1 R Perry, in Wellington had written him to go* and see the Ellis’s as they wanted a car, but he (witness) did not refer this to plaintiff, as witness was under no obligation to do so and if a sale, resulted from witness’s visit, plaintiff would got no commission. He would not deny that plaintiff had rung him as to having a buyer in view. His Worship: What did you make out of the sale of this carl

Witness: 3t all depends on what we t for the second-hand car. We might

get £lOO and we might only get £25. I did not make a very profitable arrangment with my principal in Weili ngton. John Robert Perry of Wellington, N.Z. representative, for Crossley cars, stated that he appointed Perry’s Ltd. agents for Feilding-Marton territory and the appointing of subagents was no concern of his. He wrote to his Feilding agent about Ellis and eventually Enting brought Ellis to Wellington and he (witness) closed the sale. (.’ail Neilson, motor garage proprietor of Palmerston North also gave evidence. Counsel quoted numerous legal authorities at considerable length. His Worship reviewed the evidence and stated the basis of the contract was clearly stated in the letters though somewhat‘ loosely and these confirmed the verbal arangment. Mr McKenzie had said the commission was low, being only a sub-agent’s commission. It could not be said that the agent was 1 interested in any variation that was | nude on a sale. Ellis asked about the old car and plaintiff said he would have to deal with the firm. Ellis, an I independent witness, stated that it was > through Cooksey that he got interested ’ in the Crossley car and subsequently I purchased one/ Plaintiff is entitled to his commission. He bad done all that ' w.-G required of him in the letters and’ 1 hmtriictiotis. As the amount of com--1 mission for the large car was not mca- • tioned in the letters he would give 1 judgment for £5O being the highest j commission referred to together with I Court costs £2 and solicitor’s fee £4 3s. , Mr Ilill referred to the possibility of lan appeal. Security was fixed at £l~ I 12s together with the amount of the ' judgment and costs.

The Court did not rise till 8 p.m. judgment being given in the dimness of four candle lights. GENERAL. At Bulls on Saturday during the hearing of a case in which an agent was claiming commission -cn the silo of a motor car defendant’s counsel referred to the fact that any ordinary agent would not have delayed so long as three weeks before advising defendant that he had a prospective buyer. Opposing counsel here intervened “Plaintiff is not an ordinary agent, he is a good agent, he uses discretion and does not spoil a sale by rushing a prospective buyer.’’ Another successful euchre party was held by the Bulls Ladies’ (’roquet Club lon Thursday evening in th 3 Clifton ; Hall. The ladies prize was won by | Miss A. Mansell and the gents by Mr i Geo. Flower. The consolation prizes I went to Mrs R. Thompson and Mr E. I V. Wilson. | Mr Alexander Woolford who died i following injuries received in the motor j accident at Huntcrville on .Saturday i last, was well known in Bulls having been born here and also educated here. | His untimely end has cast a gloom over the district and sincere sympathy is extended to his wife and relatives.