Image from Google Jackets

Barnard Marcus and Co v Ashraf

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8818) 7 May 1988 67-71(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 27 January 1988. An appeal by Barnard Marcus and Co (BM) as auctioneers from a county court decision rejecting their claim against the defendant (A) for commission on the sale of A`s house. A had instructed one firm of auctioneers to sell his property, and when they failed to make a sale, he instructed BM without withdrawing the instruction to the first firm. Terms were arranged with BM. BM did not get the property into their January sale, but informed A that the property would be in their February sale. On 15 January the property was sold by the original firm who received commission. BM claimed that commission was payable in accordance with their terms. This was disputed. In the county court the judge rejected the claim for commission but awarded BM the withdrawal fee specified. BM appealed. CA rejected A`s suggestion that the terms of the contract had been varied to exclude a sale other than by auction, or that the contract had been terminated as BM failed to get the property in
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39150 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 14694-1001

CA 27 January 1988. An appeal by Barnard Marcus and Co (BM) as auctioneers from a county court decision rejecting their claim against the defendant (A) for commission on the sale of A`s house. A had instructed one firm of auctioneers to sell his property, and when they failed to make a sale, he instructed BM without withdrawing the instruction to the first firm. Terms were arranged with BM. BM did not get the property into their January sale, but informed A that the property would be in their February sale. On 15 January the property was sold by the original firm who received commission. BM claimed that commission was payable in accordance with their terms. This was disputed. In the county court the judge rejected the claim for commission but awarded BM the withdrawal fee specified. BM appealed. CA rejected A`s suggestion that the terms of the contract had been varied to exclude a sale other than by auction, or that the contract had been terminated as BM failed to get the property in