Chestertons (a firm) v Barone
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 282(6328) 4 April 1987, 87-91(4)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 February 1987. Appeal by estate agents from a CC decision dismissing a claim for commission , in respect of sale of property in Chelsea. The respondent, a solicitor, acted for the owner, a company incorporated in Panama or Liberia and managed from the Channel Islands. An officer of that company instructed the solicitor to proceed with the estate agents; this he did, initially omitting to mention the existence of a principal. After an acceptable offer the plaintiffs were informed the respondent was acting for a foreign company. The appellants acknowledged the company as client and matters proceeded to an exchange of contracts, but when the appellants submitted their account the respondent alleged they had not earned it in full. This led to CC proceedings against the respondent; the assistant recorder held the agents had elected to look to the principal, the foreign company, alone and the respondent was under no liability. Alternatively, that the company had been substituted for| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37631 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 5723-1001 |
CA 11 February 1987. Appeal by estate agents from a CC decision dismissing a claim for commission , in respect of sale of property in Chelsea. The respondent, a solicitor, acted for the owner, a company incorporated in Panama or Liberia and managed from the Channel Islands. An officer of that company instructed the solicitor to proceed with the estate agents; this he did, initially omitting to mention the existence of a principal. After an acceptable offer the plaintiffs were informed the respondent was acting for a foreign company. The appellants acknowledged the company as client and matters proceeded to an exchange of contracts, but when the appellants submitted their account the respondent alleged they had not earned it in full. This led to CC proceedings against the respondent; the assistant recorder held the agents had elected to look to the principal, the foreign company, alone and the respondent was under no liability. Alternatively, that the company had been substituted for