SALE OF COTTAGE PROPERTY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 6, 2 October 1920, Page 12

SALE OF COTTAGE PROPERTY

-f— ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A LAND ' AGENT. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M.. heard a civil case, in the Magistrate's Court. yesterday afternoon, when Mary Green/Hislop, wiio of. Jonn Hislop, of Wan-en Street, Hastings. retired engine-driver, proceeded against William James Gibson, land agent, carrying on business under tho name of Business, Exchange, at No. 1-5 Willis Street, to "recover .£B3 10s. in | respect: to tho sale of a property known .as No. 5 Mortimer TerrMe Weninßt™Mr. G. Watson.appeared for the plaintirt, and Mr. C. W. Neilsen ,for tho defendant. • -l „„ ..i In the statement of claim it set out that in September, 1918, the plaintiff through her husband- P»vo instructions to.Frederick Gibson; of Hastings, brothor of the defendant, to cell the.house> nt I the price of but through some 1 error the price mentioned to the de- ! fradant. was £450. On November J3, 1919. the plaintiff gave to Peter Gibson, another brother of tho defendant inI structions on behalf of defendunt to sell the, property at £530 free of. commission. A week later the'defendant reported that ho had sold the property at £450. it was alleged that the salo made by the defendant wa3 actually for £500. -1-he plaintiff repudiated the 6ale. but was advised that ahe was bound to the transaction. 1 Negotiations then took place between the plaintiff and the purchaser, and- after some tho nlaiutifT ivaa ' obliged to complete the transaction _at .£',lo instead of £550.' the pnee'at. which it was alleged the defendant was instructed 1 to sell. It was further alleged that the defendant received a deposit of £100 on the sale, andfailed to .for- such sum as. required by the Una Asents Act, :1912; and, although repeatedly requested to pav.Tip. it was September 1,- 1920, that he P al . d iE , Plaintiff's losses under thw h ead were assessed -at £20. 10s., which the plaintill claimed,' together with £40 loss on the sale and .£l7 10s„ the difference between • the and 10s . te amount . refunded, making the total .£B3 10a. For the defence, it was contended «ftt tho original authority in writing Boa, never been-revoked, eithor . verbally or in writingfurther, that if the contract foi sale, entered into by tho defendant was not authorised, the ijlamtiff ffns > not bound, to complete -it. ■ Tho • plaiintiff however, did completo the contract, and so ratified tho acts of the agent. The Magistrate said it "was a great pity that land agents did not rightly .understand their dut : es towards'their principals. An agent was in ft position ol 'trust, and owed, a 'duty io his principal. He must work .hone?tly for his principal. Mr. Hunt commented on'the loose'method ' •adoptsd.b.y.idefendant in carrying on hu business, a'?d stated; that had ho been frank and.told tho.plaintiff that ho had sold' the 'property for £500 lie would twe actcd rightly, but he wrote and told her that he had sold it for £450 net, and apparently he thought Jie was ( l° in ß right. Afterwards his attitud® towards his principal appeared to be antagonistic. ' - The -Magistrate held that the defendant was negligent in his business, that lie did not give the transaction his proper care, and while His Worship, did not think "thero was/anything in tho nature fraud, lie said the matter wis not, f aT -from being "sharp.practice. The plaintiff having ratified the sale, could not recover the sum of Judgment was given for plaintiff for £29,. with-costs.