A COMMISSION CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 522, 19 September 1902, Page 3

A COMMISSION CASE.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, an interesting claim for commission was heard, Joseph Peckovcr suing Charles Nicholson and John Sheridan for £52 10s, commission on tho sale of business premises adjoining the Albion Hotel, the property of defendants. Mr DcLautour appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Jones for defendants. Mr DeLuutour said they claimed the whole commission as in an ordinary case, and alternatively the same amount as on a quantum merit. M. G. Nasmith, jun., stated he was formerly connected with Mr Pcckover’s agency. He had spoken to Mr Nicholson about property he had for sale, and Mr Nicholson said ho had a place in Gladstone road ho was willing to sell, that he had a partner, and wanted £2200 clear of commission for it. Witness informed defendant that Mr Pcckover’s rate of commission was 2.! per cent, over £2OO. De-

fendant agreed that the property should be sold for .£2200 clear, arid witness Booked it with others. Defendant knew for whom witness was acting. By Mr Jones: Plaintiff was to get everything over and above £2200. The other properties wore taken on the same terms. Plaintiff stated that he remembered Mr Nasmith, who was in his employ, giving b.lu particulars of Mr Nicholson’s property on April 24. He entered the proper yin his sales book, and when showing Mrs Ronnells and her husband his list of properties pointed out this one as suitable for the class of investment which they required. Tho promises wero occupied b.v Messrs Jcune, Sheridan and Co., and It. N. Jones. Witness showed Mr and Mrs Rennells ovor tho property,

and ho had several interviews with them. Mr and Mrs Rennells told him that they had been over the property with Messrs Sheridan and Steele, tenants. Ho bad first seen Mr and Mrs Rennells on June 11. After that conversation ho waited on Mr Sheridan, and told him that Mr Rennells would not give more than ,£2IOO, which Mr Sheridan declined to accept, Defondant, within an hour, sent witness a letter, stating he only gavo him till 4 next day to get a better offer. AVhen offered £2IOO, Mr Sheridan said he could get a better offor. Witness saw Mr and Mrs Rennolls tho sarno day, but failed to get a better offer. Next day defendants withdrew the property, stating that they intended to sell to Mr Bradley, the owner of the other portion of the hotel. They also left a note. Witness thought this was tho end of tho matter, but he afterwards heard that the property had boon sold to Mr Rennells for £2IOO after all. That gentloman confirmed the sale. Witness saw Mr Nicholson, and told him that he did not’think ho bad been fairly treated. Nicholson acknowledged the property was sold to Mr Rennells, but stated he had very little to do with the matter, Mr Sheridan having made the arrangements. Witness thought that the facts of tho sale wero admitted, and ho was sure that the price, £2IOO, was admitted. Afterwards Mr Sheridan admitted tho property was sold for £2IOO. His Worship : Did he say so ?

Witness: Yes. There was no question about price. Witness then authorised Mr DeLautour to make a claim for the commission.

By Mr Jones : He had submitted the property to others who were in a position to buy. Mr Nasmith’s evidence as to getting the L 2200 clear of commission was correct, but in most cases where a purchase was completed the vendors did not tie themselves down to the first arrangements, and allowed a fair commission. The question of commission was not touched upon in any conversation with Mr Sheridan. He had told Mr Sheridan on what terms the property had been placed in his hands, ar.d Mr Sheridan was surprised, slating that Mr Nicholson had not mentioned the subject at all. Mr Sheridan did not tell witness that if they were to take L 2200, it must be clear. Witness quoted the property first to Mr and Mrs Rennells at L 2275, and subsequently at L 2250. If the property had been sold at L 2225, he quite understood the defendants were to have L 2200 unless they liked to give him something out of it. He sometimes made the price less to help the seller. Mr Jones : Or to help yourself?

Witness : Of course ; it is a mutual advantage. I don’t see what such questions have to do with the case. Out of the L 2200 Mr Sheridan had to pay L 75, a liability due to one of the tenants before this tenant's lease could be cancelled, and also pay the mortgage off. This was to be paid by the vendors. Mr Sheridan apologised for not giving witness more time to get a better offer, but he had no confidence in Mr and Mrs Rennells, as they had given such a lot of trouble in the matter. Witness had not told Mr Nicholson hq would have nothing further to do with the property. Mr Nicholson stated witness had spoiled his chance of selling by putting on too much commission. Mr DeLautour : He did not understand there would be auy compulsion on a pur-

chaser to cancel the lease. Ho was not aware of Mr Sheridan’s interest in the property until told by Mr Nicholson. Wilfrid Rennells, stated that Mrs Ronnells had purchased tho property for £2IOO, a mortgage of £BOO to be taken off. He had first heard of the property through Mr Peckover. After making enquiries he had decided to offer £2IOO. Mr Peckover stated that this offer would not be accepted, and later that tho property had been sold.

By Mr Jonos: The torms on wdich the property was purchased was £2IOO and tho lease still to run.

Mrs Rennells gave corroborative evidence. She had purchased under conditions which sho had not hoard of before, Mr Shoridan stating they could get the property for £2IOO, by not paying tho £75 and allowing the loaso to run on, John Sheridan stated that when Mr Peekovor told him that he had a client for the property who offered £2IOO, witness replied stating that £2200 was_ wantod clear of commission. Later plaintiff stated he could not get more than £2IOO, and would have to givo tho property up. Defendant considered that the matter was out of Mr Peckovor’s hands, as plaintiff held out no hope. Subsequently he entered into negotiations with Mrs Rennells, and came down £25 from their price, £2200, tho purchase being completed under new conditions. There was no intention of doing Mr Peckover out of his commission.

Mr DeLautour: When Mr Peckover brought tho offer of £2IOO thore was noth? ing said about Mr Steele’s lease. Charles Nicholson gave evidence as to giving particulars to Mr Nasmith, and also corroborating Mr Sheridan's statement that Mr Peckover came and told defendants that as he could not get tho Reunells above £2IOO, he would have to givo it up. At the time defendants were negotiating with Mr Coleman, agent for Bradley’s estate, and it was also proposed that one of the defendants should buy the other out. Negotiations wore afterwards re-opened with Mrs Rennells, and the property sold. Mr DeLautour: Did you Mr Peckover to do agency work for nothing ? Witness: I undertook to pay him nothing. He was to get £2200 for the property. Mr Jones contended that on the facts and the law tire caso was against Mr Peckover. He had given up the property, and had not concluded his contract to get £2200 for tho property. The contract was a special one, and had not been completed.

Mr DeLautour submitted that the issues before the Court were :—(1) Was the ultimate purchaser introduced by plaintiff; (2) was tho sale made by tho intervention of plaintiff; (3) was tho revocation of contract made after the introduction of the purchaser; (4) did plaintiff obtain an offer of £2IOO for the property; (5) did plaintiff do work and perform services beforo revocation ; (6) what, if anything, was tho plaintiff entitled to ? Mr DoLautour addressed the Court on the issues raised by him. Although tho contraot might ho of a special nature, he contended plaintiff could not bo deprived of his claim for commission on quantum meruit, Judgment was reserved.