by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
REIQ Journal : July 2008
LEGAL ISSUES 35 McKay quickly located a developer who wished to purchase the property. On 27 May 2004, McKay convened a meeting with the parties, during which it was agreed that the developer would purchase Jones’ property and that Jones would in turn purchase a unit in a complex being constructed by the developer. The terms of the proposed contracts were recorded in a “heads of agreement” document the following day, which stated that the parties would enter into formal contracts at a later date. On 2 June 2004, McKay prepared the contract documents and met with Jones. It was not in contention that the PAMD Form 22a Appointment to Act was signed by Jones on the same day, and immediately prior to the contract documents. The Appointment was to commence that day, that is, the date that Jones executed the contract documents. decision Jones refused to pay McKay’s commission of $76,120. She appealed the judgment in McKay’s favour, ordering the payment of the commission, to the Court of Appeal. She argued that McKay had not complied with section 140 of the PAMD Act, which prohibits an agent recovering commission for “the REIQ Journal July 2008