The defendant employed the plaintiff to find a tenant for his premises. When the plaintiff was telephoning to prospective tenant ‘X’, a third party ‘Y’, overhead the conversation, ascertained the locality from X, went to the premises where there was a “To Let” board with the address of the defendant and engaged the premises. The plaintiff claims his remuneration. Is the claim tenable? Discuss.

Question: The defendant employed the plaintiff to find a tenant for his premises. When the plaintiff was telephoning to prospective tenant ‘X’, a third party ‘Y’, overhead the conversation, ascertained the locality from X, went to the premises where there was a “To Let” board with the address of the defendant and engaged the premises. The plaintiff claims his remuneration. Is the claim tenable? Discuss. [DJS 1991]

Find the answer to the mains question of the Law of Contract only on Legal Bites. [The defendant employed the plaintiff to find a tenant for his premises. When the plaintiff was telephoning to prospective tenant ‘X’, a third party ‘Y’, overhead the conversation, ascertained the locality from X, went to the premises where there was a “To Let” board with the address of the defendant and engaged the premises. The plaintiff claims his remuneration. Is the claim tenable? Discuss.]

Answer

In the given scenario, the defendant employed the plaintiff to find a tenant for his premises. While the plaintiff was in the process of contacting a prospective tenant named 'X', a third party named 'Y' overheard the conversation and obtained the locality from 'X'. 'Y' then proceeded to the premises, where there was a "To Let" board displaying the defendant's address, and engaged the premises. Now the plaintiff is claiming remuneration for his services. Let's analyze the situation in detail to determine the tenability of the plaintiff's claim.

Existence of an Agreement:

To determine the tenability of the plaintiff's claim, it is essential to establish the existence of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's engagement as a real estate agent. If there is a valid agreement in place, it forms the basis for the plaintiff's claim for remuneration.

Scope of Agency Relationship:

The terms of the agency relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant are crucial. If the plaintiff's role was limited to finding a tenant and introducing prospective tenants to the defendant, the claim for remuneration may depend on whether the plaintiff fulfilled their obligations under the agreed terms.

Causation and Proximate Cause:

In this case, the crucial question is whether the plaintiff's actions were the proximate cause of 'Y' engaging the premises. If 'Y' engaged the premises solely based on overhearing the conversation and seeing the "To Let" board, without any direct involvement or influence from the plaintiff, it could weaken the plaintiff's claim for remuneration.

Intervening Cause:

The actions of 'Y' intervening in the process could potentially break the chain of causation between the plaintiff's efforts and 'Y' engaging the premises. If 'Y' acted independently and engaged the premises without any direct involvement or inducement from the plaintiff, it may affect the plaintiff's claim for remuneration.

Principal's Liability:

Another aspect to consider is whether the defendant, as the principal, is liable to pay remuneration to the plaintiff even if the plaintiff's actions did not directly lead to 'Y' engaging the premises. If the defendant benefited from the plaintiff's efforts in finding 'X' as a prospective tenant, it could be argued that the defendant should still honour the agreement and pay the agreed-upon remuneration.

Based on these considerations, the tenability of the plaintiff's claim for remuneration can be assessed. If the plaintiff can demonstrate that their actions were the proximate cause of 'Y' engaging the premises and that the defendant benefited from the plaintiff's efforts, the claim for remuneration may be more tenable. However, if the plaintiff's actions were not the direct cause of 'Y' engaging the premises or if 'Y' acted independently, it could weaken the plaintiff's claim.