Cases - Coles v Enoch

Record details

Name

Coles v Enoch

Date

(1939)

Citation

3 AII ER 327

Keywords

Estate agency - commission

Summary

The plaintiff had authority to find a tenant for the defendant's empty shop which was opposite Victoria station. The plaintiff telephoned the firm of Scott & Adickes about the shop, and gave the location as Victoria Street , a few doors from the cinema. Mr Adickes expressed interest but doubted whether his partner, Mr Scott, would agree to take the shop. So the plaintiff asked Adickes to try to find him another tenant.

By chance, at the time of the conversation, a Mr Wilkie was in the room with Adickes. He was looking for similar premises. Adickes told him about the premises and said if Scott did not want them he would put Wilkie in touch with them. He deliberately did not reveal the exact location to Wilkie (in case Scott decided to take the premises) but simply said they were 'in Victoria'. Wilkie went to Victoria station to try and find the empty shop and located it. It had the defendant's name and address on a 'To Let' notice. He agreed a lease with the defendant. The plaintiff claimed commission on the basis of an unbroken chain of causation from himself through Adickes to Wilkie.

At first instance the judge, admitting some difficulty, agreed with the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judge's decision. Lord Justice Scott agreed with the judge that the case was near the line. However, he regarded Adickes as acting as a subagent when he was asked to find a tenant, and so his deliberate concealment of the exact location was deemed to be the act of the agent. Consequently the agent deliberately stopped short of finding a tenant, and the letting was due to the tenant himself.