(instructed by Messrs. Coward and Hawksley, Sons, and Chance) were for defendants.
Mr. Justice Action said the questions for decision were (1) the true construction of the agreement, and (2) its application to three contracts entered into by the defendants with the Chinese' Government. In his lordship's view the true construction of the letters which formed the agreement was that defendants were to be liable to. pay 5 per' cent. commission on all orders obtained by defendants from the Chinese Government during the continuance of the joint agency of the plaintiff and Mr. Birchal, such commission to be payable when the defendants received payment from. the Chinese Government. He. thought the defendants were right in saying that this commission was Vimited to orders obtained, as distinguished from loans made by them to the Chinese Government in order to secure those orders. Consequently, plaintiff's claim for £30,000, as 5 per cent. commission on a loan of £800,000 under the first contract could not be sustained. There remained the question of the commission payable on the order obtained, the total purchase price of which, under the first contract, was £300,000. Commission at 6 per cent. had been aid on £220,000—an amount of £11,000—but " plaintiff " contended that he was entitled to £4,000 more 5 per cent. on the balance of £280,000. Defendants replied that a rebate was made" on the price stated in the contract very largely reducing the net purchase price as between them and the Chinese Government; and (2) that in fact defendants had never been aid more than £220,000 for the coeds supplied. It was generally agreed that business of this kind with the Chinese Government was. impracticable unless the sellers were prepared to sacrifice considerable sums over and above what would otherwise have been the commercial selling price of their goods. In the present ease no less than " £80,000 went to Chinese. officials on behalf of their Government, as a "rebate." How far the officials benefited personally was not known, and probably could not be known.' He thought, however, that defendants were entitled to say that although, prima facie, their liability to pay commission would have extended tothe whole of the £300,000 asthe expressed contract the price of their goods, inasmuch as the. "rebate" proper tion ately "reduced the amount actually paid by the Chinese Government, the plaintiff's claim for 5 per cent. on £80,000 must fail. He thought the result might, have been otherwise had the price remained at £300,000 as between the Chinese Government and the defendants, Under the second contract there was an agreement to erect three wireless stations for £66,000 and an advance in cash of £134,000, From what he had said it followed that plaintiffs claim for commission on the £134,000 could not be sustained. As to the £66000, it had never' been disputed that commission 5 per cent. was due to plaintiff, and would be paid him when the Chinese Government paid the defendants. The third contrast concerned the formation of the Chinese National Company, and under it plaintiff claimed (1) perpetual commission on all business done between the [National Company and the Chinese Government; (2) commission on:
$100,000 advanced' to that Government; (8) damages for breach of contract, the alleged breach being the actual formation of the National Company. Plaintiff had abandoned. his first claim; the second was disposed of by his* lordship's construction of the original egret ment; and the third failed, beau: the evidence did not support it. the result, subject only to the admitted contingent liability in respect of the £66,000 under the second contract, his lordship gave" judg-
with costs, ment for the defendant company
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.