Macnamara v Martin [1908] HCA 86

Macnamara v Martin [1908] HCA 86

The agent, having fulfilled his contract by introducing a financially competent and bona fide purchaser prior to the revocation of authority, was entitled to remuneration; subsequent misconduct pertaining to the agency does not forfeit rights already accrued. As the case was tried on the issue of entitlement to the full commission or nothing, and the defense failed to prove the purchaser was unsuitable or that misconduct affected entitlement, the judgment in favour of the agent must be restored.

Parties
Appellant: Macnamara; Respondent: Martin; Mrs. Daniels
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment in District Court restored.
Legal Topics
Agency, Commission Contracts, Quantum Meruit, Right to Remuneration, Misconduct of Agent
Contract Law Agency Commission Contracts Quantum Meruit Right to Remuneration Misconduct of Agent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macnamara

Appellant

Martin

Respondent

Mrs. Daniels

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an agent entitled to commission or remuneration where the agent has introduced a bona fide purchaser but the principal revokes authority before completion of sale?
  2. 2 Does subsequent misconduct of an agent after revocation of authority disentitle the agent to remuneration already earned?
  3. 3 Is the principal entitled to reject a purchaser and refuse remuneration if the purchaser is not a fit person to become tenant of a hotel?

Ratio Decidendi

The agent, having fulfilled his contract by introducing a financially competent and bona fide purchaser prior to the revocation of authority, was entitled to remuneration; subsequent misconduct pertaining to the agency does not forfeit rights already accrued. As the case was tried on the issue of entitlement to the full commission or nothing, and the defense failed to prove the purchaser was unsuitable or that misconduct affected entitlement, the judgment in favour of the agent must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment in District Court restored.

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged.
  • Motion for new trial dismissed.