Image from Google Jackets

Cobbs Property Services Ltd v Liddell-Taylor

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 12 EG 104-107(2)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 October 1989. (C), a firm of estate agents , signed a judgement on 15 February 1989 in default for a sum of £6,900 claimed as commission earned from the sale of (L)`s property. L was served with a writ which he was slow to deal with which lead to the default signing. L applied for the judgement to be set aside. The facts were not in dispute. C was retained by L to act as estate agents to sell his property. They were to be paid if they introduced a purchaser who bought the property. The house was sold to a Mr Fowlds who had applied to and been supplied with particulars by C. L however told the agents that the buyer had been found through the accountants . L contends that Mr Fowlds went to C due to a conversation with L`s accountants. The High Court held that C had done what they were contracted to do, introduced Mr Fowlds on the basis of a direct introduction and Mr Fowlds had bought the property. At appeal L claimed that in addition to introducing the purchaser it is essential
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42428 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 36733-1001

CA 12 October 1989. (C), a firm of estate agents , signed a judgement on 15 February 1989 in default for a sum of £6,900 claimed as commission earned from the sale of (L)`s property. L was served with a writ which he was slow to deal with which lead to the default signing. L applied for the judgement to be set aside. The facts were not in dispute. C was retained by L to act as estate agents to sell his property. They were to be paid if they introduced a purchaser who bought the property. The house was sold to a Mr Fowlds who had applied to and been supplied with particulars by C. L however told the agents that the buyer had been found through the accountants . L contends that Mr Fowlds went to C due to a conversation with L`s accountants. The High Court held that C had done what they were contracted to do, introduced Mr Fowlds on the basis of a direct introduction and Mr Fowlds had bought the property. At appeal L claimed that in addition to introducing the purchaser it is essential