Image from Google Jackets

Peter Yates and Co v Bullock and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 37 EG 75-81(4)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 May 1990. Appeal by Y, a firm of estate agents , from a County Court decision dismissing their claim for commission against B. The claim was in respect of the sale of a hotel in Blackpool . Y had received instructions to sell the hotel with a commission agreed at 1.5%. Eventually an offer was made by a Mr and Mrs Duxbury (D) which was rejected by B on the advice of Y. Meanwhile B instructed another firm of estate agents, (K) to whom he gave sole selling rights . He did not terminate Y`s agency. After about a month K reported to B that they had sold the hotel to D and a Mrs Hume. Contracts were exchanged, the sale was completed and B paid K the agreed commission. B refused to pay Y who issued the writ in the present proceedings, claiming the same amount of commission. Cc dismissed the claim and Y appealed. CA held, allowing the appeal, that the fact that Y did not actually introduce Mrs Hume was of little importance. She was introduced by D, not by K.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43406 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 41576-1001

CA 16 May 1990. Appeal by Y, a firm of estate agents , from a County Court decision dismissing their claim for commission against B. The claim was in respect of the sale of a hotel in Blackpool . Y had received instructions to sell the hotel with a commission agreed at 1.5%. Eventually an offer was made by a Mr and Mrs Duxbury (D) which was rejected by B on the advice of Y. Meanwhile B instructed another firm of estate agents, (K) to whom he gave sole selling rights . He did not terminate Y`s agency. After about a month K reported to B that they had sold the hotel to D and a Mrs Hume. Contracts were exchanged, the sale was completed and B paid K the agreed commission. B refused to pay Y who issued the writ in the present proceedings, claiming the same amount of commission. Cc dismissed the claim and Y appealed. CA held, allowing the appeal, that the fact that Y did not actually introduce Mrs Hume was of little importance. She was introduced by D, not by K.