LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 536, 25 January 1913, Page 5

LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION.

A DISPUTED CLAIM. At the Magistrate's Court on Wednesday and Thursday, a case of interest to land agents and sellers was heard before Mr E. Rawson, S.M. J. B. Young v. W. J. O'Regan, claimed £IOO commission on the sale of the Skating Rink at Te Kuiti. Mr Howarth appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Hine for defendant. It appeared from the evidence that defendnt placed the property mentioned in plintiff's hands for sale for £ISOO, and undertook to pay him £IOO commission i f a sale was effected. Plaintiff entered into communication with several people including Mr Curie, with a view to selling the property. Eventually the property was sold direct to Mr Curie by Mr O'Regan for £llOO. Plaintiff claimed that the parties had been brought together through his agency and that in consequence he was entitled to commission on the sale. Evidence in support of the claim was given by plaintiff. Mr Curie, called by the plaiintiff, stated that Mr Young had approached him with respect to the property several times. : He thought the price quoted was £I6OO. Defendant denied that plaintijff had brought about the sale to Mr Ourle, as the latter had refused to purchase the property at the price and negotiations between them had finished. Mr Curie was using the building for picture shows and defendant had first heard of Mr Curie as a possible purchaser through Mr Grinter, who had an interest in the property. Defendant had finally offered the property to Mr Curie at £llOO with the .alternative of not again being allowed to show in the building if he failed to purchase. Defendant wrote to Mr Curie to that effect, and also stated another party had made an offer fur the place. T. Grinter supported defendant's evidence.

Mr Hine, for defendant, contended that plaintiff's negotiations had fallen through, and there was no suggestion of an offer from Mr Curie at a lower price. He quoted authorities to show that plaintiff was required to prove that his agency or introduction was the foundation on which the negotia tion for the Durchase of the building was founded.

Mr Howarth, for plaintiff, contended that the property had been introduced to the purchaser by plaintiff at a figure stated by the defendant and had subsequently been sold at a lower figure, thus giving no opportunity to the plaintiff. He quoted authorities to show plaintiff in the circumstances was entitled to his commission.

His Worship, in delivering judgment, said that decided cases did not assist a great deal in arriving at a decision in such cases. A special set of facts had to be dealt with. It was obvious the plaintiff could not succeed in his claim for the special commission agreed upon if a sale was effected at £ISOO. He had endeavoured to sell at that figure and had failed. With respect to any claim for commission the onus rested upon plaintiff to show that defendant's act had prevented him from selling. He was not satisfied that plaintiff's act was the basis of the sale which took place. Plaintiff would be non-suited.