SALE OP HOTEL LEASE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 304, 17 September 1920, Page 5

SALE OP HOTEL LEASE

OTjAIU for k'efdnd' op DEPOSIT.' Reserved judement was delivered yesterday hv Mr. W. G. Kiddell, 6.M., in the ease of Kathleen Oawne (Mr. H. P. O'Leary) v. Fanning and 00. (Mr. W. Ferry). The plaintiff claimed £150, deposit paid by one J. Shea to the defendants on an agreement to purchase the lease of the Elth*m Hotel in May last, which was later rescinded owing to Shea fl inability toWomplete tho transaction. Defendants counter-claimed for £1% alter paying £25 into Court, and contended that the plaintiff authorised them to sell the lease, and agreed to pay a commission of 5 per cent., also that they ejected a sale to Shea at £2500, and the commission due on this amountod to £125. The Magistrate said: "In the. plaintiff's authority to sell, which also oears the same date as the contract ard. receipt, the price for the leasehold is fixed at £2500, and furniture to be naid for at the rate of £1 per week. The s'ock is said to jo worth about £1000, bills arranged. 11l the agreement nothing' is said about tire stock or how. it is to be paid for by Bhea. This was an important part ot the consideration, and in order to comp y with the Sale of Goods Act it should have been included :n the contract for ■ale In this respect the agreement docs not carry out the a-Jthoritv for role given by plaintiff to the defendants; further, the aepo-it wan accepted by the defendants aB plaintiff's agent, subject to license being obtained and finance arranged by Bnea As these- conditions were not carried out. and the sale went off because of Shea's Inability to complete under ?hese circumstances I do not think tha the defendants earned the commission claimed " The Magistrate also said there was a conflic/of evldeneo as to wha was the real reason for agreeing to end the contract with Shea, but -the we,,h t. evidence was in favour of the. plamtifi s fUtement. The' rpemen of sale pr • tared-by defendants contained no provision about the stock, and it wr-s thereore unenforceable hr the nla "1«. '»*«• ment was civ-en for plain iff for the amount claimed, with costs lotall.ns -m 12s. Judgment was also .entered for plain tiff on the counter-claim.