In refusing to make the agreement valid and binding.

Fuller V. Eames (1892), 8 T. L. K. 278; here an agent

who was employed to procure a loan, brought the principals

together ; but before it was completed the negotiations

were broken off for reasons beyond the control of the

agent. The Court held that the agent was entitled to

his commission. Smith, J., said ; " If the person proposing

to negotiate a loan brings the principals together, and if

nothing remains for him to do, he is entitled to his full

commission."

Nosotti V. Auerbach (1898), 79 L. T. 418; here the

plaintiff was instructed by defendant to find a purchaser

for his house for ВЈ4000. On January IG he found one T.,

leady and willing to pay that sum; but who required

possession on March 15. The defendant refused the offer

on the ground that he could not give up possession on

March 15. The Court held that the plaintifi' was entitled

to his commission; seeing that when all the terms of an

agreement are stated, except the term as to the time when

it is to be carried out, as to which there is no express

stipulation, then it is an implied term that tlie agreement

is to bo performed within a reasonable time.

RIQHTS OF AN AGENT AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL. 57

It seems that where no limit has been fixed to the

time during which an agent is to receive commission upon

orders obtained through his introductions, he will be

entitled to receive his commission, even after the deter-

mination of his agency, upon all orders from customers

introduced by him during his agency.

Salomon v. Bvoionfield (1896), 12 T. L. R. 239; here

the defendants, who were pottery manufacturers, agreed

to employ the plaintiff as their agent to obtain them

customers and orders for their goods in Australia. The

plaintiff was to receive 7^ per cent, upon the net amount

of cash received in payment of goods, orders for which

were obtained through him ; and also 7^ per cent, upon

all orders from customers introduced by him, on payment

being made by them, whether such orders were obtained

through plaintiffs representations or not. Upon February

6, 1895, The defendants gave plaintiff three months' notice

to terminate his employment : he, however, made a claim

to be paid commission upon all orders from customers in

Australia introduced by him, as the contract was indefinite

as to time. The Court held that the reason why no period

was put to the duration of the contract was that it was

Intended that payment should be made upon all orders

received from customers introduced by the plaintiff: that

It was open to the defendants to cease dealing with the cus-

tomers introduced by him if they chose ; and that there-

fore, the plaintiff was entitled to the commission claimed.

As a general rule an a^ent is not entitled to recover

any remuneration, upon a " Quantum Meruit," for work

done, unless the business which he has been employed to

transact has been completed — vide Story on Agency (9th

ed., sect. 329), and also the following cases : —

Dalton v. Irwin (1830), 4 C. & P. 289; here it was

held that where a broker is employed by a shipowner

to procure a charter party, if the negotiation goes off on