Successful Claim for Commission

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7915, 2 September 1905, Page 2

Successful Claim for Commission

The S-M. on Position of Agents

The S.M. gave his reservod judgment on Friday in the ense of Bewley and Griffiths v. Levi W. Jeffries (Feildiiig), n claim for £ll3 l'ls for services rendered as agents in a property transaction. Mr Quilliam appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr 1. S. \\i ton for the defendant. The Magix-vnte said that 'if an agent is authorised to sell propertv on terms 111 ,t he is to receive a commission if he effects a sale, he is not entitled to his commission unless and until contingency of a salo happens. The case was simply one of contract. But if the agent has brought a bona fide purchaser face to face with his principal, and a salo is frustrated )>y the act or default of the principal, the agent is not therefore to lose his remuneration. He has done all he can do to earn his commission, and ivhile lie cannot sue on the contract, because it has not been in terms performed, he is allowed to claim upon a quantum meruit the reasonable worth of his | services. The application of these i principles to thd present case was obvious. Cliff was introduced by the plaintiffs as a purchaser, and signed, in fact, a binding clause to purchase, accepted by the defendant. That the. sale was not carried through was simply and solely be. cause the defendant did not complete. The fact that defendant did not own the property, but leased it. from his father, did not in any degree affect his liability to the plaintiffs. The case standing thus, the Magistrate said lie did not quite appreciate what the defence was. Thero was a suggestion, it was scarcely more, that the plaintiffs' authority was impliedly revoked by a letter from] the defendant in which he stated that he could not complete without his father's consent but in which he still treated the sale as pending. The letter, however, even if it, could be treated as a revocation of the plaintiffs' authority, which, to the Magistrate's mind, it clearly could not be, came altogether too late to deprive the plaintiffs of their right to remuneration. Dealing with the question of the quantum of damages, the S.M. quoted authorities, and said he thought the plaintiffs were entitled to damages on the footing of the commission on the Fcilding property. Judgynent 'was therefore entered for £126 with costs.

"Something was said," added the S.M., "of the fact thatj the plaintiffs were also agents fur Cliff and were to Ih> paid commission upon the sale hy ihat genteman also. Hut it was not suggested that this course operated or would in the event of the sale having been carried through have operated to the prejudice of the defendant. 'Mr Weston repudiated anything in the way of unfair dealing in this connection by the plaintiffs. I only notice this part of the case, therefore, .to say thai the actis agents at once for the vendor and purchasrH of an estate, and claiming commission from both—is 'Vought with great danger to. thi« igents who so act."* The agent'* interest, he continued, must not bo adverse to any party for whom ho acts, because his duty is to act with a sole regard to the interests of his principal. The general principle is laid down in the case of Solomons v. Pender. A particular and instructive application of the principle i?> the case Aadrews v. llamsay. There an agent employed to .sell a property took commission from the pur chaser, and it was held that the agent must not only account for the commission, hut that he had no right to recover . any commission from his employers.