New Zealand Cases

Progress, Volume I, Issue 9, 2 July 1906, Page 227

New Zealand Cases

Principal and Agent. Commission. — Mr. Parsons promised Mr. Latter a commission oi if he effected a sale of the former's farm. Mr. Latter found a purchaser, Mr. Lehevre, with whom Mr. Parsons entered into a proper contiact for sale. Afterwards Mr. Lehevre refused to carry out the agreement, and Mr. Parsons agreed with him to cancel it, Mr. Lehevre paying £200 and being released from liability. Held that Mr. Latter was entitled to his commission when a sale was effected and the vendor had accepted and approved of the purchase. Held if an agent is employed simply to sell without any special condition making his commission payable only upon an actual completion of the purchase, and the performance of some other specified condition, the agent is entitled to his remuneration as soon as he has procured a person approved by the vendor to enter into a binding contract of purchase upon terms warranted by his authority, and is not concerned with what afterwards takes place between the parties. Latter v. Parsons. 8 Gaz. L.R.^96. Interest. Written demand with notice THAT INTEREST WILL BE CLAIMED. Lord Tenterden's Act (3 and 4 Will. IV. c 42) gives discretion to a jury to give interest where there is a written instrument whereby a debt or sum certain is made payable at a certain time, or a written demand of the money with notice that interest will be claimed. W. E. Clouston & Co., Ltd., owed Mr. Corry money. On 10th October, 1903, he wrote to the Co. — '" I shall be glad if you can arrange to let me have a cheque for balance of my account, with interest, by Ist November." All moneys due to defendant were paid on the Ist November but without interest. Held that a demand of payment with interest at a future date, is not less a demand because couched in courteous and moderate language, and is a notice that interest will be claimed from the date of such demand until the time of payment. It makes no difference that the demand was intended to cover interest from an earlier period. Mr. Corry was therefore held entitled to interest from 10th October to 9th November. — W. E. Clouston & Co. Ltd. v. Corry. 8 Gaz. L. R.-572. Sale of Goods. Insurance by Purchase. Whose Risk ? — Donaghy's Rope & Twine Co. Ltd. agreed to sell to Wright, Stephenson & Co 26 tons of flax binder twine. Over 12 tons were delivered, and in 1905 on receipt of an invoice for the balance of 13 tons odd, Wright, Stephenson & Co. wrote asking the Rope Co. to store the twine free of storage. The Rope Co. consented to do this, requesting Wright, Stephenson & Co. to attend to the insurance. Wright, Stephenson & Co. insured the twine for but the insurance company after making enquiries described the twine in the policy as in "A" store. A fire took place in the Rope Co.'s premises and the twine which was in " B " store was destroyed, and Wright, Stephenson & Co. lost the benefit of the insurance. Held that the twine in a deliverable state had been unconditionally appropriated by the Rope Co. to the contract by the seller with the assent of the buyer and that therefore the property in the goods had passed to the buyer (under sec. 20 rule 5 paragraph 1 of " The Sale of Goods Act, 1895 ") and the risk was therefore the buyers'. Held further that ' even if the property had not passed, there was an agreement by which the risk was transferred from the seller to the buyer and the seller, not having represented to the insurance co. that he twine was stored in the " A " store, was therefore entitled to the price sued for. — Donaqhy' s Rope &> Twine Co. Ltd. v. Wright, Stephenson &Co 8 Gaz L R. 561. Bankruptcy. Apparent Possession Hire Purchase. — Mr. Scott, a furniture dealer, sold goods on the hire-purchase system. The purchasers signed bailments agreeing to pay for the hire — a monthly sum for a fixed term. In default of any payment Mr. Scott could terminate the hiring and retake possession of the chattels. The purchaser could terminate^ the hiring at any time by returning the chattels. In the event of punctual payment of all monthly instalments the goods became the purchaser's property. Mr. Scott assigned to Mrs. Vincent by deed all his interest

in the bailments and also the chattels comprised therein. Neither assignment nor bailments were registered. On Mr. Scott's becoming bankrupt, the Official Assignee moved to set aside the assignment on the ground that the goods bailed were at the time of the bankruptcy in the possession or apparent possession of the bankrupt under section 2; of "The Chattels Transfer Act, 1889" Held that, as, while the bailee kept up his payments and complied with the conditions of the agreement, the bankrupt had no right to the possession of the goods, the goods were therefore neithei in his possession nor his apparent possession, and that the case was within neither the words nor the mischief ot the Act. — Re James Scott. 8 Gaz. L R. 578.