Petersen v Moloney [1951] HCA 57

Appl Nal Dist Appl New Era Cons ion Apo pe ile Installations v arson, fedtanety — Iadusriesy Serres Lea CME Fea Legon aah aio" 'Norwich Norwich i vCurmi 1. + neral Villages Pty (1999) al Winter Wantenhur 5) Insupanee 64 ACSR184— frtmnes Co pd (f998) rig ACSR33 Inevrenss, Insurance ALR 481 Tid (9?) ou LawyerRe Ren tO ged Dist lation Competition Grange 84 C.L.R. Hamer dist alos) so USTRALIA. Tron (1999) = 167 Al LR i 9 [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] PETERSEN i ss s £ i 2 APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF, AND MOLONEY AND ANOTHER . 4 ' . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

ne 2pkins de Hopki ins Vv Baglin &

Bagl lin (1098) ta ease

Principal and agent—Hstate agent—Agent for vendor—Authority to receive purchase H.C. or A.

money—Whether implied—Burden of proving express authority—Whether evidence of authority or ratification—Acknowledgment of receipt of purchase money—Whether estoppel created—Judgment against one of two defendants— Whether amounting to election for purpose of appeal.

'An estate agent, as such, was instructed by the vendor "to find a pur- chaser" for her house. The agent found a purchaser and received from him the whole of the purchase price. A contract of sale was executed and subsequently a transfer of the land in the form prescribed by the Transfer of Land Act 1893-1950 (W.A.) was signed and registered. 'To the vendor's action against the purchaser for recovery of the purchase price the purchaser pleaded that he had paid the estate agent who was the vendor's agent with authority to receive the purchase money. The estate agent was thereupon joined as a defendant and as against him the vendor (in the alternative) claimed the purchase price as money received by him for her use.

Held (1) that there was no evidence to support a finding that the agent had authority to receive the purchase money nor was there evidence of any ratification by the vendor; (2) that the acknowledgment in the transfer although evidence against the vendor did not create an estoppel ; and (3) that the judgment obtained by the vendor in the court below as against the agent did not for the purpose of an appeal amount to an election to treat the agent as liable to the exclusion of the purchaser.