The Gazette 1955-58

Per Romer L.J. :—If they knew nothing, what business Mr. Wade had to give a definite and unequivocal answer in reply to Mr. Pritchard's query I am at a loss to understand, and it appears to me that he was a great deal more at fault in doing that without making the slightest attempt to ascertain what the answer was. Not knowing what the position was, as appears from that letter, he should have said to Mr. Pritchard : " I honestly do not know. You had better find out. You had better make the usual search." I do not think there is any ground for founding a cause of action by the plaintiffs against the defendant on those lines. In conclusion, and in agreement with my brethren, I think it is highly undesirable that estate agents should hurry people into signing contracts without legal advice and especially when they attach to those contracts con ditions of sale which neither the parties nor the agents themselves in the least understand. The agents^ function is to find purchasers for property and not to produce contracts and persuade the parties into signing them. (Peter Long and Partners v. Burns (1956) 3. All E.R. 207). I On taxation between solicitor and own client costs allowed should be those that were proper for attain ment of justice or for defending the rights of the party. Solicitors acted for a company who were defen dants in an action in the Queen's Bench Division for the price of toy aircraft manufactured to the company's design and who counterclaimed for damages for faulty manufacture. The proceedings involved complicated technical matters, and the hearing lasted seven days. The company having g.me into liquidation the liquidator obtained an order on the solicitors to deliver an itemised bill of costs and for taxation of the bill as between solicitor and own client. The order for taxation did not specify where the taxation should take place, and it in fact took place in the Companies Winding- Up Department. Objections (Nos. 1-4) having been taken to disallowances or reductions of certain items charged in the bill (including certain fees paid) the registrar disallowed the objections for various reasons but did not state in his answers that he had considered the amounts of the items not to be proper and did not distinguish between what might be necessary on the one hand as between party and party and what might be proper on the other hand to be allowed to a solicitor as against his own client. In relation to charges for attending court the So

it was a contract induced by an innocent misrepre sentation, and I cannot say that it was not with reference to a substantial matter. The purchaser had been told that the town and country planning scheme which was in existence (which might, of course, have been seen by either party if they had wanted, to) would only affect this garage to the extent of two or three feet; but in fact it would almost have wiped it out of existence, if it has not entirely done so. I cannot say that a representation of that sort is not a representation on a substantial matter; and, although it was an innocent mis representation, it was a representation of which the purchaser was entitled to take advantage while the contract was still executory and to say that she would not carry out the bargain because it had been induced by the representation." The case shows how undesirable it is for persons who have something to sell to sign a form put before them by agents without understanding it, and it emphasises the necessity for taking legal advice before a contract for the sale of property is signed. I have said nothing on the general duties of agents as to town and country planning matters. I would, however, point out that the claim of the agents in this case is for no less a sum than £387 ios., and I cannot see how they can be justified in placing on the defendant any responsibility for that which she said about what might happen to the frontage of the premises. She at least gave them some information which might have led to their making inquiries if they thought it right to do so. Per Morris L.J. :—" Mr. Wade, however, pro ceeded to give a positive answer. He did not even leave it to the defendant to answer. He did not even say that he only knew what the defendant had told him. Once that question was asked, it seems to me that Mr. Wade must have known that no con tract would go through if the answer given was incorrect. He ought at least to have warned Mrs. Pritchard that the answer to the question ought to be accurately ascertained. If an answer was being given, then it ought to have been verified before a contract was signed and, if necessary, the advice of solicitors sought. But a contract was signed there and then. If commission was to be earned when a binding contract was made, then I should have thought that solicitors would have been introduced to give their skilled assistance as to the terms and form of any proposed contract. This case perhaps illustrates how troubles and difficulties may arise if estate agents do work, that is to say, the work of arranging binding contracts, which is more appropriately try solicitors.