AGENT LOSES CASE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 398, 5 July 1928, Page 1

AGENT LOSES CASE

COURT REFUSES TO HEAR DEFENCE SALE OF AN HOTEL Press Association. WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Saying that it did not wish to hear the respondent counsel's evidence, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of J. M. Samson, a Dunedin auctioneer, against the decision of Mr. Justice Sim in April last. Appellant claimed £125 from the White Star Brewery as commission for the sale of an hotel. The agreement, however, was not in writing and the company repudiated the promise to pay the commission. An action was brought in the Supreme Court last April to obtain the commission, and respondent company on section 30 of the Land Agents’ Act of 1921-22, which provides that all appointments of land agents must be in writing, were successful in their defence and appellant was non-suited. Mr. A. .T. Donnelly, on behalf of the appellant, contended that (1) Section 30 of the Land Agents’ Act did not make a contract for a lang agency not in Writing, unlawful, but merely barred the agent’s right to sue on the contract; . (2J. absence of written authority might be waived by the principal; (3) the principal was precluded from setting up a statute when he agreed not to set it up as a defence, or where the general principle of estoppel applied; (4) that the Court was. entitled to apply to the provisions of the Land .Agents’ Act the same principles as were applied by the Courts of Equity to the Statute of Frauds in order to prevent the Statute from being made an instrument of fraud. Mr. Donnelly then said that the requirements of a written contract had been waived by respondent company and the company had in effect agreed not to set up an absence of authority as defence. This was a case where the doctrine of estoppel applied. Setting up of want of authority made the Act an instrument of fraud, which was far from the intention of the legislature. Havii}g r heard the argument along these lines the Court adjourned. On resuming it stated that it did not desire to hear Mr. F. D. Sargent, counsel for respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs on the lowest scale.