An Agent’s Responsibility

Hokitika Guardian, 31 May 1922, Page 1

An Agent’s Responsibility

IXTERKSTI.XG CASK. WHr.I.I.VOTOX. May '2O. An important principle is involved in an action, W. A. Darcy v. Dalgotv and Co.. Ltd., and another, argued at the Supreme Court to-dnv before Mr Justice Chapman. The action was commenced in Wnimanni on February 11th., plaintiff claiming £80!) damages from defendants for alleged breach of duty on tile part of the company in i-egard to the sale of a mob of bullocks In having introduced to plaintiff a purchaser who was unable to compete the deal. These

Hies were placed before a jury

answers being to the effect that there was a general custom under whic h an agent was liable for flu l completion of a (outracf, that there was a custom that, an agent would introduce onlv a

purchaser of proved financial ability, and that delivery of the bullocks had been given the purchaser with the ap- ' proval of the defendant company. The ouestiou of damages did not go before llic Wanganui jury, for counsel agreed . that the finding upon tluil point should he left with his Honor.

Following further argument at the Wellington Court as to the effect and soundness of the findings of the jury and the general nuestion of damages. Mr Iturnurd this morning formally nun ed for judgment upon tlio findings of tlie jury, to which Mr Skcrrett replied with a formal application for a non suit. The question involved was the responsibility of an agent in connection with the financial position of an intending -purchaser introduced to plain tiff. Mr Kkerrott contended that then was no damage, as plaintiff had the Stock, hut against this it was claimed that the action of the defendant company had prevented plaintiff -making a profitable sale elsewhere. 'flic case is unfinished.