Chesterfield and Co Ltd v Zahid and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 29 EG 75-78(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: QBD 26 January 1989. In this action estate agents (C), claimed against the defendants (Z) and (A), commission from the sale of a house. There were questions as to whether liability for commission was attached to Z and A or to a company in which they were interested; whether one or two princesses of the Saudi royal house were involved in the negotiations; who exactly were appointed to find a purchaser; who secured an introduction and who was the effective cause of sale. QBD held that the instructions were given by Z and A, not by the company and that only one princess was involved in the transaction. C were the effective cause of sale, the effective introduction being made by C`s subagents.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41147 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 28438-1001 |
QBD 26 January 1989. In this action estate agents (C), claimed against the defendants (Z) and (A), commission from the sale of a house. There were questions as to whether liability for commission was attached to Z and A or to a company in which they were interested; whether one or two princesses of the Saudi royal house were involved in the negotiations; who exactly were appointed to find a purchaser; who secured an introduction and who was the effective cause of sale. QBD held that the instructions were given by Z and A, not by the company and that only one princess was involved in the transaction. C were the effective cause of sale, the effective introduction being made by C`s subagents.