Entitlement to commission
Language: English Series: EGCS ; (1988) 6Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: In Barnard Marcus & Co v Ashraf CA 27 January 1988 it was held that the cc was wrong in deciding that as there had been a constructive withdrawal of a property from sale, the only commission payable was under clause 3 of the terms of business. The facts amounted not to a constructive withdrawal, but to a new sale which fell within the provisions of clause 1.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2408-36 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 43204-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2408-33 Office automation system | WB2408-34 New type of property doctor | WB2408-35 Relocation problems | WB2408-36 Entitlement to commission | WB2408-37 Insurance disclosure | WB2408-38 Boom in property shares | WB2408-39 Home sweet status |
In Barnard Marcus & Co v Ashraf CA 27 January 1988 it was held that the cc was wrong in deciding that as there had been a constructive withdrawal of a property from sale, the only commission payable was under clause 3 of the terms of business. The facts amounted not to a constructive withdrawal, but to a new sale which fell within the provisions of clause 1.