CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3586, 27 July 1912, Page 2

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.

INTERESTING DEAL IN PROPERTY.

JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR ' PLAINTIFF.

A judgment which was anticipated with some interest was given yesterday hy Mr AV. A. Barton, S-M-, in the ease of C‘. G. Bloore (Mr Burnard) v. Frank Lowndes (Mr Blair). His Worship dealt at some length with the evidence and concluded :

The first question in this ease is : Was the sale brought about through tile instrumentality of the plaintiff? Did he bring about the relationship of buyer and seller? There ran be no doubt upon the evidence that- he did. Secondly : Has the plaintiff been guilty of any breach of duty or such wilful misrepresentation as to disentitle him to commission ? The law is clearly laid down that no agent is entitled to remuneration where he has been guilty of any breach of duty cr misconduct in the course of the agency. The question therefore is : Has the plaintiff brought himself within this provision? lam unable to find from the evidence that he has done so. Harper says that he told Mrs Jepson on Saturday morning that the price of defendant’s house was over £7OO, hut she had not seen it at that time, and was therefore not prepared to make any offer. Mrs Jepson says that to the best of her belief the price named hy Harper was £7OO. It is obvious that Mrs Jepson’s memory is not very good as she says that she has pot the slightest recollection of seeing Mr B’oor.c about the matter at all; when he states most distinctly, and I saw no reason to doubt his evidence, that he saw her at his office with Harper,, produced the authority from defendant to sell, and quoted the price at £72 0. Harper says that defendant told him on Sunday afternoon at about 2 o’clock that lie had sold the house to Langford, and ho probably at that time thought lie would succeed in doing so. I am of opinion that that is what actually took place between them. Had defendant not made such a statement Harper would undoubtedly have taken Mrs Jepson over the house that afternoon, discussed the nrice and terms, and a sale would probably have resulted, at the price agreed upon between the parties- A further question has been raised as io whether plaintiff’s authority had expired at the time Harper saw defendant at about 2 o’clock on Sunday afternoon. lam of opinion, looking at all the surrounding circumstances, that it had not, and it is perfectly clear that Harper did not consider so. from the fact that he arranged to take Mrs Jepson over the property at 2 o’clock that afternoon. Defendant’s evidence is that lie could have sold to Langford on the Saturday night at £720 had it not been in plaintiff’s hands at- that time; obviously that is not so as Langford could only have bought contingent upon selling his own house, which he did not do ; and would therefore he most unlikely to have made a deposit- on defendant’s house until he had done so. Besides which defendant had reserved with himself, the right to sell, and. could have done so had the opportunity offered. Defendant’s chief ground or complaint appears to be that plaintiff pushed the sale of other properties in preference to his, and he admits that he may have paid plaintiff commission on tlie sale of the house in question had Mrs Jepson been relieved of Healey’s. For the reasons given I am of opinion that the plaintiff is not guilty of any wilful misconduct or misrepresentation in the matter, and that he was through the action of defendant prevented from affecting a sale of the property, and that being so judgment will be' entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed £2o, with Court costs £1 16s, witnesses Us, solicitor’s fee £2 12 s.