The Gazette 1955-58

of the Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Solicitors Acts, 1932 to 1941, ordering that the appellant be struck off the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court, to an order that he should be suspended for two years. The solicitor was found Guilty at Quarter Sessions on two charges of assault and was sentenced to three months, imprisonment. He did not appeal against conviction. Before the Disciplinary Com mittee it was alleged' that the solicitor having been convicted and sentenced for certain criminal offences had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor. The committee found that he was guilty of such conduct and ordered the solicitor to be struck off the roll. The solicitor appealed against the order on the ground that the committee did not give due weight to the mitigating circumstances and that the order was too severe in view of the facts and the mitigating circumstances, and that the penalty should be reduced. Per Lord Goddard, L.C.J. :—There is no appeal in the present case against the finding of conduct unbefitting a solicitor. The solicitor had been in practice since 1932 and there had been no suggestion until the present proceedings of misconduct either inside or outside the profession. This Court had always been very loth to interfere with findings of the committee on questions of act or on the penalties which they imposed. If the matter had been one of professional misconduct it would have taken a very strong case for the Court to interfere with the sentence of the committee. There was no suggestion of professional misconduct in the present case: that being so, I think that this Court was bound to consider, as they would have to do in the Court of Criminal Appeal, whether or not the sentence was in proportion or out of proportion with the misconduct proved. Mr. Cumming-Bruce was right no doubt in saying that in the present type of case the committee acted for the honour of the profession and to maintain the confidence of the public. As lamentable as this lapse was (and it was not suggested that it was more than an isolated occasion) I do not think that the public confidence would be affected. The honour of the profession had still to be protected, but the Court had to consider whether the sentence was one which was in pro portion. The Court were quite satisfied that the sentence was too severe for the offence proved. It was a shocking offence, but in one sense it was no worse in a solicitor than in any one else, and no better. In re a Solicitor (1956) i W.L.R. 1312.)

Auctioneers who as a result of innocent misrepresentation have a contract for sale rescinded by purchaser are not entitled to commission from vender. The vendor appointed the plaintiffs, a firm of house and business transfer agents, her sole agents to sell her garage business. She signed a commission note under which she undertook not to consent to her business being sold except to a person intro duced by the plaintiffs and to pay to the plaintiffs commission " upon (their) introducing a person ready, willing and able to enter into a binding contract to purchase " her business. A purchaser signed a contract to purchase the business having been induced to sign by an innocent misrepresenta tion made to her by a representative of the plaintiffs in the presence of and on the information supplied by the vendor as to the effect of a town and country planning scheme. The purchaser, having subse quently discovered that the scheme might result almost in the abolition of the garage, sought to rescind the contract on the grounds of misrepre sentation and by agreement was released from the bargain. The plaintiffs claimed from the vendor commission on the ground that they had introduced a person who had entered into a binding contract to purchase. Held by the Court of Appeal (Singleton, Morris and Romer, L.JJ. affirming Lord Goddard, L.C.J. that the contract signed by the purchaser was not a " binding contract" within the meaning of the commission note because it was induced by an innocent representation and could not be enforced as against the purchaser; the plaintiffs were, therefore, not entitled to recover commission. Per Singleton, L.J. :—It seems to me to be highly undesirable that parties should be asked to enter into a contract of this kind without any advice. The impression given is that the sole desire of the agents' representative was to obtain a signature to the document in order to found a claim for commission. When the matter came into the hands of the solicitors, it was ascertained that the true position was that the Berkshire County Council, in their development plan, had a road-widening scheme which, when work commenced on it, would necessitate the compulsory purchase of the bulk of the said property and would render it impossible to continue the said business on what remained. The said work is scheduled for completion by 1972. " The purchaser is saying that it is not a binding contract. I have to consider whether it was a binding contract. As the parties have agreed that the pur chaser was induced to sign the contract by the state ment made by Mr. Wade, I am bound to hold that 79