A LAND COMMISSION CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXII, Issue 8958, 25 October 1907, Page 4

A LAND COMMISSION CASE.

Important Judgment.

At Mar ton Court yesterday Mr Stanford, S.M., delivered judgment In the land commission case, T. H. : Baas (Mr Miles) v. H. H. Wolters | fMr Collins), claim £75, heard at last sitting of Marton Court. The text of the judgment is as follows: Plaintiff sues defendant for "the sum of £75, being £IOO amount promised as commission, less £25 paid as deposit, or for £49 Is 7d j being 1% per cent on total purchase | money, £4BBI 10s, being £74 14s 7d j less £25 already paid, or for such I sum as the Court thinks fit plaintiff | entitled to on a quantum meruis. j I gather from the very voluminous evidence taken at Wellington, Car- j terton, and Wanganui, as well as at . Marton, that the promise to Jpay £IOO commission was for a sale at ; £2O per acre, but that defendant subsequently agreed to take a lower price, viz., £lB, and to let the property for five years with a compulsory purchasing clause at £lB, that lie accepted buyer ou those terms, signed a lease, and let buyer into possession. There are a number of points raised by this position ol matters which I need not determine. The main argument urged, and on which plaintiff's claim rests, is whether plaintiff by finuing :an approved tenant who has signed 1 a lease with a compulsory purchas- ! ing clause at £lB is entitle to a comi mission as on a sale, and when such, commission i 3 payable if at all. What is a sale? Mr Justice Buckley says: "It does not mean a sale completed by conveyance, it was a sale if there was a proper and valid contract for sale." (Rosenbaum v. Belson, 2ch. 2(57, 1900.) It has been held that goods bought meant a bargain made even if the goods were not afterwards supplied, and that a broker was entitled to his commission on the baragin being made. Lockwood v. Levett, 29 L.J. O.F. 340. In Rimmer v. Knowles, 30 L.T. 496, there was an agreement to give a surveyor £SO if ho obtained a purchaser for some property at £2030. Afterwards defendant raised the price of the property to £3OOO, and the plaintiff found him a builder who agreed to purchase it. Ho was to take it on interest at £3OOO, and he signed a lease for 999 years and

ail option to complete the purchase during 20 years. It was held on these facts that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the agreed amount of commission. In America the general rule is that when a broker is employed (for a commission to be paid) to procure a purchaser for property and presents to the principal a proposed purchaser it is for the principal then to decide whether the person presented is acceptable, and that if without fraud, concealment, or other practice on the part of the broker, the principal accepts the person preseuted and enters into an enforceable contract with him, the commission is fully earned (Kell v. Baker, 28 American State Reports. 542). Judge Edwards said: "The result of the authorities appears to me to be that if an agent is employed simply to sell without any special condition, making the payment of his commission payable only upon actual completion of the purchase, or upon the performance of some other specified condition, the agent is ontitled to the payment of his remuneration as soon as ho has procured a person approved by the vendor to enter into a binding contract of purchase upon torm3 warranted by bis authority." (Latter v. Parsons, 20 L.J. (555). This case was an appeal from a decision of Judge Deuniston, and in varying language, Chief Justico Stout, Judge Edwards, Judge Coop6r, and Judge Chapman stated the same principle. Conclusion: The case before me is really decided by Latter v. Parson. That the transaction in this case was by way of Ave years' lease witli a compulsory purchasing clause makes no difference ; it was a sale on terms stated and approved by seller, and the agent has earned his commission. The original promise was to pay £IOO commission if a buyer at £2O per acre was prooured. The did not procure a buyer at this iijure, but found a buyer acceptable to principal at £lB. He lis I think, entitled for Ins labour i and trouble to a sum on a quantum [ meruit of £U 14s 7d. Judgment for '. plaintiff for that amount and costs ) amounting to £ls Bs, subject to an amendment of expenses on account I of the evidence taken at Carterton. I His Worship explained that the i amount for which judgment was ' given included the £25 in the hands { of plaintiff. .

Your dressmaker cannot give yon satisfactory results unless you have proper fitting corsets. America's best corset is acknowledged to be "Warner's Rust Proof." Britain's foremost corset is the now famous "D.C." We stocs both these makers' goods to suit tall, short and medium figures. Try us for corsets at McEldowuey's storo, Marton, Hunterville hape.* ,