CLAIM FOR COMMISSIONS

Chronicle (Levin), 30 April 1947, Page 4

CLAIM FOR COMMISSIONS

CASE FOLLOWS TERMINATION OF AGENCY The circumstances under which a principal who by his own act prevents his agent earning his commission by terminating the agent's authority after fntroducfcion of a purchaser, is liable to the agent if not for commission. then for damages equivalent to commission was well exemplified in ' a reserved judgment delivered recently by Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., at Levin. The ease was one in which K. Shaw, of Levin, hardware merchant, for whom Mr. N. M. Thomson appeared, sued Massey Harris Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. J. Todd, for commissions on the sale of various farm implements during the cur•rency of an agency contraet between the parties, which had been terminated by Massey Harris Co., Ltd., on October 1, 1945. ' In the case of sev'eral of the saies Shaw had obtained the orders from the customers and delivery of the implements had actually been made prior to the contract being terminated, but payment had not been made by the purchasers until after the agency contract had finished. Under these circumstances .the company had paid to Shaw half only of The commissions he would normally have received. , It was contended by Mr. Todd that the contract 'provided that the agent was only entitled to his commission when deliv'ery and payment had been made, and that both these conditions must have been fulfilled before the contract had been cancelled. The magistrate, however, pointed out that the course of dealing between the parties clearly established that the eompany collected its own accounts from purchasers, and that Shaw was clearly entitled to his commission as soon as payment had been. made irrespective of the date of termination of the agency contract. In the case of a sale Of a hay press the position was that delivery had not taken place until December, 1945, some two montbs after the contract- had been, terminated. In this case it was clean from the agency contract that the agent was not entitled to commission in any case where delivery had not been made prior to termination. It was argued, however, by Mr. Thomson that the agent had b.rought about a cohtractual relationship between the company and the , purchaser, and that it was no fault of Shaw if the company chose to cancel his agency contract before the date of actual delivery. The commission in this case came to £24 16s 8d and counsel submitted that although commission as such could not be claimed, nevertheless Shaw was entitled to damages on what was known as a quantum meruit, and

that such damages should^ he equal to the commission of £24 16s 8d. Mr. Goulding, upholding this submission, stated that Shaw had \ v procured a contract which the / company had adopted, that there 1 was no evidenee that the company had paid commission to anyone else in respect of the transaction, and that Shaw was entitled to damages equal to his full commission on this sale on the grounds that the company, by determining the contract prior to delivery, had prevented the agent from earning the commission. Judgment was accordingly given in favour of Shaw ■ for the full amount claimed, amounting to £47 11s 8d, together with solicitors' fee £4 3s and court fees £7 12s.