LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 537, 4 June 1920, Page 3

LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION

KARAKA CASE. Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., gave a decision at the Magistrate's Court m Auckland on Tuesday in the casc brought by Forbes Eadie (Mr. Waddingham) against Thomas H. lidd (Mr. A. E. Skelton). This was a claim to recover £74 12s alleged to be dive I as commissioned earned on the sale of a farm. Plaintiff was a land agent and deefndant the former owner of a farm at Karaka which was purchased by a discharged soldier. The owner and soldier had ai ranged a sale, but the negotiations Had come to an end because the owner was not satisfied with a section at Remuen, which was part of the consideration i offered for the farm. The intending I purchaser then sought the aid ot ' the plaintiff, who deals largely in | purchasing through the Returned j Soldiers' Land Bureau. Plaintiff < swl- ' vised the ex-soldier to send for defendant, and after an interview, the three being*present, he agreed to try and get the necessary funds for t-ie I purchase of defendant's farm for tne returned soldier. Defendant signed an authority for plaintiff to sell his farm. It was plaintiff's practice to give the discharged soldier half tne commission earned by him on tne purchase of the farm bought by the soldier. That was not paid to the soldier direct, but expended on his behalf in legal expenses, stamp duty, and other outgoings. The document was typed and signed by the ex-sol-dier. its terms were an undertaking by the purchaser to allow defendant half the commission. Plaintiff valued the land and sent an option signed by the defendant to the Land Bureau. This fixed the value of the land at 1:24 per acre. The property was ultimately sold to the ex-soldier at 5:23 an acre, and defendant claimed £74 12s commission. The defe' V was that plaintiff did not introduce the purchaser, the parties having been negotjatinp; prior to the mtr • - vention of the agent, also thai throughout the agent was not of Ue seller but of the purchaser. His Worship held that defendant was liable, as, on the facts he specially agreed to pay plaintiff a commission, also the sale would not have o-one through but for the exertions of the plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff for J:74 12s with costs.