TROLLOPE V. PETER LLOYD LIMITED

—

©,7103/51

bee

4.4 Gourley, Gort. Print, Melb,

ORIGINAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF, AUSTRALIA

co OOP nee

__PETER LLOYD LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LZ -A-0-

Judgment delivered at. Sydney. .

TROLLOPE

PETER LLOYD LIMITED

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

TROLLOPE

PETER LLOYD LIMITED

DIXON C.J.

FUTTAGAR J. EIT J. JUDGMENT 'AYLOR J.

TROLLOPE

ve

PETER LLOYD LIMITED

DIXON C.J.

FULTAGAR J. arto J. JUDGMENT TAYLOR Js

This is an appeal from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales setting aside the verdict of a jury in an action in which the appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. In the action the appellant claimed to recover the sum of £5,000 as and for commission payable to him for services performed on behalf of the respondent. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a verdict for the appellant for the amount claimed and judgment was entered accordingly. The order from which this appeal is brought set aside this verdict and directed that judgment should be entered for the respondent.

The respondent company, of which George Arthur Lloyd was at all material times the managing director, carries on, as one of its activities, the business of motor vehicle distributors. The appellant was acquainted with Lloyd and during the year 1948 the former was contemplating proceeding to the United States of America on a business trip. The business in which the appellant was then engaged was not associated in any way with the sale or distribution of motor vehicles but some years previously he had been intimately connected in the United States with the motor vehicle industry. In particular, he had been employed by

the Ford Company at Detroit and San Francisco and at a later

stage by other motor vehicle organisations, including the Chrysler Corporation and the Chrysler Export Corporation both at Detroit and in Australia. In all, the appellant claims to have had experience in this industry extending over some thirty years and to have become acquainted with many of the executive officers of organisations operating in the industry. No doubt it was with this background in mind that some discussion pertinent to this case took place when, about the middle of 1948, the appellant informed Lloyd that he proposed to make a business trip to the