(1988)1988April22 (STYUAN1DES.PIK1S&KOURRIS,JJ.) SAWASLEVENT1SANDANOTHER, Appellants-Piaintiffs, v. ELIZABETHN.STYLIANIDESANDANOTHER, Respondents-Defendants. (CivilAppealNo. 7025) Estateagency—Commission—When payable—Principles applicable— Needofadefinitemandate,theperformanceofwhichistheefficient cause (causacausans)oftheactofsale. The facts of thiscase appear sufficiently intheJudgment ofthe Court. 5 Appealdismissedwithcosts. Casesreferredto: Kokkinomilosv. Kalisperas
(1967)1 C.L.R.276; J.F.AhoEtFilsetc.v.PhotosPhotiadesandCo.
(1968)1C.L.R.477; Kalisperasv. Papadopoulos
(1969)1 C.L.R.480; 10 HjiAntoniv.Theocharis
(1969)1 C.L.R.512; Kalisperasv. Kababe
(1971)1 C.L.R.296; Schiza v.Pamboulos
(1979)1 C.L.R.
- Appeal. Appeal byplaintiffs againstthejudgment oftheDistrictCourtof 15 Nicosia (Laoutas, D.J.) dated the 26th June, 1985 (Action No. 3269/84) whereby hisclaimfor£1,770ascommission forthesale of land was dismissed, Ch. Loizou, for the appellant. G. Pelayias,for the respondent. 254 20 1 C.L.R. Leventls v. Styllanides STYLIANIDESJ.:TheJudgment of the Courtwillbe delivered byMr.JusticeKourris. KOURRISJ.:Thisisanappeal againsttheJudgment ofaJudge oftheDistrictCourtofNicosiabywhichhedismissedthe plaintiffs' 5 claim for £1,770 as commission for the sale of the defendants' house. The plaintiffs are estate agentsinNicosia and intheir statement ofclaimtheyalleged thattheywereauthorised bythe defendants, the owners of a house situate at 5 Papanicoli Street, Ayii 10 Omoloyitae tosellit. The defendants, by their statement of claim denied that they have authorised the defendants to effect the sale of their house. They alleged that the transaction of the sale of their house was effected between the defendants themselves and the purchasers 15 of the house. The house wassold tothe football club«Omonia»for £59,000 and the plaintiffs claim reasonable remuneration of 3 per centof thepurchase price which makesa total of £1,
- The trial Judge, having listened to the evidence, accepted the 20 evidence ofthedefendants andtheevidence ofthePlaintiffs' own witness, a certain Antonopoulos and having considered the questionwhethertheactsoftheplaintiffs weretheeffect oftheacts of thesale of the house, decided against it. The plaintiffs appealed against the Judgment of the District 25 Courtandthegroundsofappealmaybesummarizedasfoliows:1-The Court failed to appraise and evaluate the evidence;
- The conclusions and inferences of the trial Judge from the evidencewereunwarranted;and3.ThetrialJudge misinterpreted paragraph Cofthe statement of claim. 30 We have considered carefully the arguments of both counsel andwehavereached theconclusion thatatitshighest,thecase for the plaintiff hasdisclosed a nebular arrangement whereby oneof the plaintiffs would mediate to persuade prospective purchasers with whom the owner was locked in negotiations to offer an 35 acceptable pricetotheowner.Therehasbeen noagreementasto the rate of the commision or the circumstances under which the commission would be earned. 255 Konnt· Λ. L*venti·v.StyUanidee
(1988)The trial Court properly directed itself as to the principles relevant totheearningofanagent's commission whicharetothe effect thatthere mustbea definite mandate,theperformanceof whichistheefficient cause(causacausans)oftheproductionofthe authority.SeeloannisKokkinomilosv. CostasKalisperas
(1967)1 5 C.L.R.276,J.F. AhoEtFilsetc. v.PhotosPhotiades&Co
(1968)1 C.L.R.477; CostasKalisperasv.VictorPapadopouihs
(1969)1 C.L.R. 480;Cosfas HjiAntoniv.Georghios Theocharis
(1969)1 C.L.R. 512; Costas Kalisperas v. GeraldTh.Kababe
(1971)1 C.L.R.296andSchizav. Pamboulos
(1979)1 C.L.R.373.) 10 Thereafter, thetrial Judge assessedtheevidence notingin the process thatnotonly therewasnoevidence thatthebuyers acted on the mediation or persuasion of the plaintiffs, but onthe contrary, the plaintiffs' witness who testified about the circumstances of the completion of the said sale, namely - 15 Antonopoullos, a member of thecommittee of Omonia Clubpurchasers' club, testified to the contrary- According to his evidence, thetransactionwasconcludedwith directnegotiations withtheowners ofthehouse. This evidence coming from theplaintiff wasvitalfortheircase 20 whereas their evidence as totheexistence of themandatewas indefinite and inconclusive. With regard toparagraph 6oftheamendedstatementofclaim, thiswas, initself,vagueastothenatureofthemandateand the reference in theJudgment that theprice would be raised from 25 £55,000 to£60,000 was inconsequential tothe outcomeofthe case. For the reasons we have stated, we areof theview thatwe should affirm the judgment of the trial Court and dismissthe appeal with costs. Appealdismissedwithcosts. 256 30