CLAIM FOR COMMISSION

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 128, 20 August 1927, Page 13

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION

NECESSITY FOR CONTRACT BENEFIT OF DOUBT Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. A case was concluded before the Chief Justice to-day in which William War dr op, as assignee in the estate of E. Vine and Co., claimed £375 commission from Leigh Hunt and L. L. Hunt, being a share of £750 commission in respect to the sale of Littlejohn’s property, Lambton Quay. Plaintiff set out that there was a verbal agreement to share commission equally. This was denied by defendants. His Honour said that in these cases the onus was on plaintiff, who had to establish a contract. . Where a business transaction was entered into, and the parties did not choose to record the business iq writing, then they took the risk of disppte on. themselves. The next circumstances that-prevented him from saying that a contract had been established was the curious circumstance that no particulars of Littlejohn’s property were given to Hunt. There was also no communication between Vine dnd Hunt for at least nine months. He was unable to say that Hunt was nbt entitled to the full benefit of thq denial he made in the witnessbox as 'denial of credible witness. The rule; adopted ,by the courts was that the’ benefit of the doubt must be given to the defendants There was no course for him but to decide by that rigid rule. - Judgment was given for the defendant.