I have no hesitation in holding that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. In my view the plaintiff himself made it clear in his letter of December 18, 1940, that he was not acting as a solicitor in reference to the sale of the land but as a real estate agent and as such he would only be entitled to his commission if he earned it. That disposes of his claim under his bill of costs. The commission would have been earned if the plaintiff had brought to the defendant a person willing to purchase on the terms outlined provided the defendant had not already agreed to sell the property to another. See Peacock v. Wilkinson (1915), 1915 CanLII 58 (SCC), 23 D.L.R. 197 at p. 207, 51 S.C.R. 319 at p. 333.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.