SALE OF HATAITAI PROPERTY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 234, 28 June 1921, Page 6

SALE OF HATAITAI PROPERTY

| CLAIM FOR COMMISSION FAILS. Mr. E. Page, S.M., gave his reserved decision yesterday in the case of 'Smith and Jones, land agents (Mr. G. Matson) against Percy Reginald Fulton (Mr. W. F. Ward), a claim for .£33 15s. commission on the sale of property at Hataitai belonging to the defendant. The facts Were that plaintiffs were authorised in writing to sell the property for .81175, the amount of cash to be .8275, but, subsequently the defendant intimated that he would consider .£l5O cash. On May 6 plaintiffs gave to a prospective purchaser' particulars of the property, with a. card to view, tho price quoted being <81175. with .8150 cash. The prospective purchaser, immediately on leaving tho office, went to the office of another firm of land agents, who also had the property for sale, and was given by this firm particulars of defendant’s property, with a card to view, the cash required by this firm being .8175. This firm had been, on tho same- day in negotiation with two other clients in respect to tho same property, and the firm advised the defendant of haying given the particulars to the three clients, and obtained from the defendant a memorandum giving them the sole selling rights over the property from May 6to May 10. On the evening of May G the client sent by the plaintiffs and also by the other firm inspected the- property, and wanted the owner to enter into a contract of sale there and then, but was told that nothing could bo done until the following Monday. Tho next morning this purchaser went to the office of Smith and Jones, and wanted to sign an agreement for sale and purchase. Plaintiffs telephoned to the defendant, and asked him to come around to the office to fix up the wale. The defendant replied that ho could do nothing until Monday, another firm having the sole right to sell until then. On May 7 this firm eaw the client who had previously been to Smith and Jones, and obtained from this party a written offer to purchase at £ll5O, with £175 cash. This offer was accepted. Upon the facts, the Magistrate said, he was unable to find that the sale had been brought about substantially through * fhe instrumentality of the plaintiff. There was not much doubt that if the defendant had been willing to sell on the morning of May 7, when the purchaser was in tho office of the plaintiffs, the purchaser would have then bought the property, but the defendant had given tho sole selling rights to another, firm, and refused to deal. The defendant, the Magistrate held, was within his rights in giving the other firm the sole selling rights. The authority given to the plaintiffs to sell the property was an authority revocable at will. Judgment was given for the defendant •with costs.