A LAND TRANSACTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2566, 29 July 1909, Page 2

A LAND TRANSACTION.

PECKOVER V. TAYLOR. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M. delivered the following judgment in the civil case of J. Peckover and Co. v. Allah Taylor, claim £8 15s for •commission on tlio sale of a property. Air. L. T. Bernard appeared for plaintiff and Air. F. Wray Nolan for defendant. ‘ ‘From the evidence it appears that 1 the plaintiffs are commission agents : carrying on business in Gisborne, and defendant having a section of land and house for sale, went to plaintiff’s office on sth Alay, and placed the property in their hands for sale, and an authority in writing, was- drawn up by plaintiffs and signed by the defendant, which is as follows:-—Gisborne, May sth, 1909. J. Peckover and Co., house, land, estate and business agent.—Sirs,—l hereby authorise you to act as my sole agents for the sale of tile undermentioned property and to accept 10 per cent, deposit on my behalf at the price and on the terms shown below for a period of three months from this date, and after that until I give you fourteen days’ notice of my intention to.withdraw the property. I guarantee the purchaser a good title to the property. The proporty is situated at Berry Street, sub. 11 of 32a, Berry Street, about 1-10 of acre, house of three rooms and wash-house, let at Bs, built of good kauri, water laid on. Rateable value of the property is £2 3s lid, annually £ls. The property is insured for £l5O. The price I set upon the property is £l7O. £IOO cash, balance 6 per cent. In event of a sale by whomsoever effected during this agency, I will pay you the sum of 5 per cent, on the first £2OO and 2| per oent. on the balance of the purchase money as commission.—Name, Allan Taylor, address over. Joseph Peckover, one of the plaintiffs, says T told the defendant I would advertise the property fore sale ‘for £175, and 1 did so. I know a man named Anderson. He was a tenant of mine, and he told me ho wanted to buy a house, but would defer till his father-in-law, Gough, arrived. I left for Wellington on Alay sth, and returned on the 15th, and saw Anderson on the I.7th and lie told mo that his father-in-law had bought a house, but ho did not say through whom ho had bought it.’ —Louisa Leo, clerk in plaintiff’s service, was called on behalf of plaintiff, and stated, T know Anderson. He was a tenant of plaintiff’s, plaintiff left Gisborne for Wellington on the fifth of May, and on the following morning Anderson rang up on the telephone and asked me for particulars of the property advertised for £175, which I gave him, also the situation of the property. Defendant came to plaintiff’s office about an hour later and asked if a purchaser had been found for the property, and I said “No. that it- had been submitted to several people, in- . eluding Anderson.” Defendant then said that he had a cash buyer for the property, and wished to withdraw the property from plaintiff’s hands. I drew his attention to the agreement, and he said that he wished to withdraw and would see about it later.’ As a- defence, the defendant says, ! I put the property in plaintiff’s hands for sale, and the terms were as 6hown in the agreement produced. I believe plaintiff read the agreement and explained the terms to me, but I do not remember the plaintiff reading the last clause to me. I saw John Thompson on the 6th Alay, and sold the property to him for £165.’ The evidence of Jolrn Thompson is: T bought the property from defendant for £165 on the 6tli Alay, and afterwards agreed to sell to a friend of mine named Anderson, but I subsequently sold to Gough, and the property was transferred to him by defendant. I did not see any advertisement offering the property for sale. I was aware that Anderson was looking for a property of the kind for himself. I bought the property, from defendant for £165, and-sold it to Gough for the same amount a day or two later. I don’t think defendant mentioned plaintiff’s name to me in connection with the property.’ Air. Nolan, counsel for defendant, contends: (1) That the agreement is void for want of consideration, and that it is unreasonable ; (2) that plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything as the sale was not brought about by the plaintiff. In reference to the first point, I am of opinion that the agreement, although in somewhat .unusual form/ is valid, the consideration being that plaintiff was to advertise the property and endeavor to find a purchaser for the property for the defendant. The evidence shows clearly that plaintiff was appointed sole agent for a the sale of the property for a period of three months, from the date of the agreement, and the last clause of the agreement provides that in the event of a sale by whomsoever affected during the three months, defendant would pay plaintiff a commission of 5 per cent, on the first £2OO and 2J per cent, on the balance of the purchase money. The day after the property was placed in plaintiff’s hands for sale, defendant sold to John Thomson, and it is a significant fact that Anderson, who had obtained particulars of tho proporty from plaintiff. was. a friend of Thompson’s, who bought the property from the defendant, and afterwards arranged with Anderson to sell it to him at the same price as he had agreed to pay defendant for it, but he subsequently sold to a man named Gough, the father-in-law of Anderson. Looking at the surrounding circumstances, it is obvious, to my mind, that the property was withdrawn by the defendant from the plaintiff’s hands with the object of avoiding payment of commission. Defendant admits that plaintiff read and explained tho terms of the agreement before lie signed it, but he says that he does not remember the last clauso being read to him. Defendant is not an illiterate man, and I must therefore assume that lie fully understood the provisions of the.document before signing it, and, in nry opinion, he is bound by it. In reference to the second question, I am of the opinion that the sale to Gough was brought about through , the indirect consequence of plaintiff’s advertisement. Judgment will there- , fore be for plaintiff for tho amount claimed, with costs £2 10s.