Estate agent Knight Frank has asked the Court of Appeal to order payment of its £70,500 fee for a full development appraisal of a site in Manchester.
The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision in the case, in which Knight Frank is appealing against a judge’s ruling rejecting its claim against a man who, it said, acted as an agent for a company that did not exist.
Knight Frank is seeking to force Aston du Haney to pay the sum, plus interest, claiming he in breach of his warranty of authority after he instructed the agents in February 2007 to prepare a full development appraisal suitable for lending security purposes in respect of Middlewood Locks, Salford, Manchester.
The agent said that on the signed letter of instruction, du Haney held himself out to be an agent for Morecombe Investments Ltd.
However, the company which actually had an option to buy the locks was called Morecambe Investment Co Ltd.
Knight Frank produced the full appraisal and gave it to du Haney on 30 May 2007, but the agent claimed it had never been paid.
It said that, by signing “for and on behalf of Morecombe Investments Ltd”, du Haney represented that he was authorised to contract with the agent. However, he was never so authorised, as there was never a company of that name.
It said there could be no clearer example of breach of warranty of authority, and that there was ample evidence of du Haney’s intention to mislead. Alternatively, Knight Frank argued that du Haney is personally liable for the debt.
However, lawyers for du Haney argued that Judge Hand QC was right to dismiss the agent’s claim at Central London County Court.
They claimed that Knight Frank was not concerned about names, but with contracting with the owner of the option to buy the land, which it did.
They said du Haney warranted he was acting for the owner of the option, and was, arguing that he did not breach any warranty of authority. They add that he did not contract personally with Knight Frank.
In the ruling under challenge, the judge found that du Haney was not a “rogue”, had not acted dishonestly and was not in breach of warranty of authority.
The Court of Appeal will give a decision in writing at a later date.
To access all EGi news stories and commercial property data sign up for a free trial today, or visit the subscription options page to find out more.
