Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LONDON V. MONTGOMERY.

Bxtraots from ' Brans on the law relating to the remuneratioa of Commission Agents,' referred to by Judge Kettle in b> judgment i— Page 12, per Matter of the Bolls, in B»rnetf v Isaaoson- 4 Times B*p. (1888) 645— 'To entitle a plaintiff to sue upon a Quantum meruit the rule was that if the plaintiff relied upon the acceptance by the , defendant of something he had done, he ,i, i must have done it' under oiroumitances whioh led the defendant to know that if he, defendant, accepted what had been dope it was on the terms that he must pay for it.' ' Per' Lord Juitioe Lopez— 'As to tho claim of a qnanttm meruit, it could only arise on & promise to be implied from a request by / thl 1 defendant to tho plaintiff to perform servioea for him, or upon the acceptance of services of the plaintiff so »b to imply a promise by the defendant to pay for thoie services,' * Page 2E— per Chitty Justice in re the Sovereign Lifelmurance Company (Baiter's claim) 7 Times Bep. (1891) 602 : 'As to the alternative claim for damages His JUordship explained that no good olaim oould be made on a quantum meruit, .in as much as the contract . was entire, and the whole of the strvioes agreed •to be rendered were not rendered. Nor were there any facts to justify in His Lordship's mind, a claim to - damages (quantum mntif) on the ground that the company prevented the agents by any aot or default from performing the services.' Page 93 — ' If what has been done under the -speoial co'ntraot by one party has brought some benefit to the other party, who has aocepted suoh benefit under oiroumstanoes suffioitnt to raise an implied promise to pay for the services rendered, the latter must pay the former for the benefit so received.' Page 95— Per Park Jin Bead v Barm 10 B and 0 438— 'But no claim. in the nature of a quantum meruit oan be founded upon a special contract whioh has not been performed unless the, person who has a right to i insist upon the performance of the speoial oontraot has aooepted some benefit resulting from its partial performance, or .the oiroumsbinces are such as to show in some way that s> new contract has arisen between the parties.' 1 Page 278— Simpson and Lamb, 17, 0.8., 608, 25, LT. O.P. 113. per Jeryis, O.T. ' ' Ihe right of the agent to be reimbursed depends upon the term of the agreement. A general employment carries with it a power of revocation on payment ODly of a compensation for whut may have been done under it } but there may aUo be a qualified ' employment, under whioh no payment shall bedemandable if countermanded ' and per Crowder J ' If it could be shown that the agent is, by the wrongful aot of the prinoipal prevented from oarrying onUhe work, j on whioh he in employed, he would be entitled to a reasonable remuneration for what he bad done.' Page 279— tfrickett v Badger, 1 0.8.N.5. per Williams J at P SOS. 'I am anxious it should not be supposed that the Court intends to lay it down as a geneial rule that where an agent is employed to sell property, and his authority has been revoked before anything has been done under it, he is at* liberty to resort to the common law courts for his work and labour in endeavouring to • find a purchaser. In such » oaie, nothing more appearing, if the plaintiff attempted to rely on Oa, quantum mtruit, he would probably be met by the implied understanding that the agent is only to receive aoommiiiion ifhesucoeedi iv effecting* sale, bnt if not, then he is to get nothing,"

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/WH18961020.2.34

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 8987, 20 October 1896, Page 3

Word Count
630

LONDON V. MONTGOMERY. Wanganui Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 8987, 20 October 1896, Page 3

LONDON V. MONTGOMERY. Wanganui Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 8987, 20 October 1896, Page 3