LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 February 1920, Page 8

LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION.

QUESTION OP PURCHASER'S UNDERTAKING. A claim for commission on (lie sale of property was brought before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., in the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court ' yesterday by Joseph Crockett (Mr. _Ronald H. Quilliam) against Mrs. Martha Smith (Mr. C. H. Weston). Thomas W. James (Mr. C. H. Crokcr) was also joined as a defendant, in the action. Joseph Crockett, land agent, New Plymouth, deposed to receiving instructions to sell a property for Mrs. Smith, and to effecting a sale to Mr. James. The commission, amounting to £33 las, had not been paid. To Mr. Weston: The authority was to sell at £ISOO, which was eventually reduced to £I4OO. The price agreed upon between Mrs. Smith and James was £I3OO. He only saw Mr. James once, before he signed up to purchase the property. He met him afterwards, and James told him he had bought for £1350, but that he had to pay witness commission. James asked him to make it a bit easy for him, and witness agreed to accept £3O if paid on completion. Ho would not accept less than the full amount if the matter had to come into court. To Mr. Croker: He admitted that James had told him there was nothing in the agreement for sale and purchase in regard to the amount of commission, or as to who should pay it. He gave James to understand that, although ho was offering to pay the commission, witness looked to Mrs. Smith for commission, as he had no claim on James. Mrs. Martha Smith deposed to placing a property in plaintiff's hands for sale for £ISOO, and later reducing the price to £I4OO. An option for three days was given to Mr. James. He came to see the place with his mother, and offered to pay the commission if she sold for £1350. , To Mr. Croker: Nothing was said when the agreement was signed that Mr. James was to pay commission. It was a verbal agreement with Mr. James, and she thought that he would have honoretj it. , George Grey, solicitor, deposed, in examination by Mr. Weston, that lie prepared the agreenent for sale and purchase, at which time nothing was said about payment of commission. At a later stuge he was informed by both Mrs. Smith and Mr. Crockett that it had been arranged that James should pay the commission. From what Mr. James said to witness after the purchase, he concluded that he had agreed to pay the commission. He thought for such an unusual proceeding lie should have had special instructions. In consequence a fresh agreement was drawn up, which was signed by Mrs. Smith, and, he believed, by James. A few days later James came in and asked if the agreement was identical with the first one, and witness said "No." James said ha thought It was, and, as he appeared to have signed under some misapprehension, the second agreement was cancelled. James subsequently refused to pay the commission, and alleged that the state of the property had been misrepresented to him by Mrs. Smith. Thf Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed against both defendants, James to pay the costs. He sa,id that while there was no agree-' ment between Crockett and James 119 to the commission, there was an agreement between James and Mrs. Smith, and he decided under the equity and good conscience. clause that, in order to save Mrs. Smith the costs, and the other parties the time, of another action, James was responsible for the commission.