( 207 )
EDLEY v. KOELMAN.
D. C., Colombo, 7,321.
Broker—Negotiation of sale by him—When broker becomes entitled tocommission.
Defendant, who was owner of an estate, requested plaintiff, abroker, to sell it for him, stating that he was willing to acceptRs. 35,000 for it. Plaintiff found a person who was willing to givethat sum for the estate, and.introduced him to defendant. Thepurchaser said that he would visit the estate, and if he was satisfiedwith it, he would give Rs. 35,000 for it. He visited the estate, wassatisfied with it, and telegraphed to defendant that he confirmedhis offer, and would take the property. On a survey of the estatebeing me.de it was found that the acreage was rather more than itwas believed to be when the bargain was made. Defendant there-upon claimed something more on that account, and the estate wasultimately sold for Rs. 37,149 to the person introduced by plaintiff—Held, following the dictum in Green v. Bartlett (32 L. J. C. P. 261),that the relation of buyer and seller was really caused and broughtabout by what plaintiff had done, and. that he was entitled to com-mission on the price paid.
T j 'THE facts of the case appear in the judgment of Bonser, C.J.
Dornhorst, for appellant,
Wendt, for respondent.
17th November, 1896. Bonser, C.J.—
This was an action by a broker to recover a commission on a
sale which was effected through his instrumentality.
( 208 )
November 17.Bonsbb, C.J.
The defendant is the seller of the property. The plaintiff claimedcommission at the rate of 2£ per cent, on the purchase money. Itappears that the defendant was the owner of an estate called Diya-gama, and that he requested the plaintiff, who was a broker inColombo, to sell it for him, and stated that he was willing to sell itfor Rs. 35,000. The plaintiff found a gentleman who was willing togive that sum for it, and introduced him to the defendant. Thepurchaser said that he would visit the estate, and if he was satisfiedwith it he would give Rs. 35,000 for it. He visited the estate, wassatisfied with it, and telegraphed to the defendant that he confirmedhis offer, and would take the property.
When the final arrangements came to be made, and for thatpurpose the property was surveyed, it turned out that the acreagewas rather more than it was believed to be when the bargain wasmade. The defendant thereupon claimed something extra on thataccount. Ultimately, after a few weeks, the sale was carriedthrough, and the price which was eventually given was Rs. 38,149.
This sum of Rs. 38,149 included a sum of Rs. 1,000 for furniturein the bungalow on the estate.
There is some dispute as to what was the rate of commissionagreed to by the parties.
The plaintiff said that he had refused to negotiate the sale forless than 2| per cent., which he said was the usual rate chargedby brokers in similar transactions in the absence of a special agree-ment. He said that the defendant had offered him 1| per cent.,and that the matter was left open. The defendant, however, statedthat what he agreed to was to sell for Rs. 35,000 net. The DistrictJudge preferred to believe the plaintiff’s version of what occurred,and ultimately gave judgment for the plaintiff for 1£ per cent, onRs. 37,149, being the purchase money less the Rs. 1,000 for furniture.
The defendant has appealed, and he says that the plaintiff didnot sell the property ; that he only introduced a purchaser, butthe Court of Common Pleas in Green v. Bartlett (32 L. J. C. P.261) stated the law applicable to such transactions thus :—“ The“ question whether the. agent is entitled to be paid commission“ on the sale has been often litigated, and the rule has been to“ hold that there has been a sale by an agent, which would“ entitle him to such commission, if the relation of buyer and“ seller has been really caused and brought about by what he has“ done, if in other words he was the causa causans by which the“ property was sold.” Now it seems to me on the evidence in
( 209 )
thin ease that there can be no doubt that the plaintiff fulfilled 1896.that condition. It was due to him that the sale was effected, and NoveiaApr 17.that being so he is entitled to his commission.Bootes, C.J.
There is no appeal on the part of the plaintiff against the decree,and therefore it is unnecessary to decide whether he was not reallyentitled to commission at the rate of 2$ per cent, instead of 1£,which has been allowed. The result will be that the appeal is _dismissed with costs.
Lawbtb, J.—I agree.
EDLEY v. KOELMAN