RECEIPT OF PURCHASE-MONEY BY VENDOR. 475 



plaintiff thereupon bronght an action for the non-delivery of the 120 

 tons, but the Court held that he was not entitled to recover because 

 performance of the contract became impossible from the perishing of 

 the thing without default in the contractor. See Taylor v. Caldwell, 

 32 L. J. Q. B. 1G6. 



It was decided in Vimy v. Chaplm by the Lord Chancellor and Lord 

 Justices, confirming the opinion of Kindersley V.-C, that there is no 

 (jeneral ride that, in every case of a imrchase, the ]^urchaser can insist 

 uipon the vendor personally receiving the purchase-money ; but the vendor 

 is not entitled to refuse upon the reasonable request of the purchaser, 

 where the special circumstances would suggest such a step ; and in 

 every case where the vendor does not attend personally to receive the 

 money, the purchaser can require the written authority of the vendor 

 for the receipt of the money by an agent. The vendor's solicitor is not 

 entitled to receive the jmrchase-money l)y virtue of Jus office, and neither he 

 nor any other person merely because he has possession of the deed of 

 conveyance with receipt endorsed, executed by the vendor (ih.). Where 

 a purchaser requires the vendor to execute the conveyance in the pre- 

 sence of the purchaser or his solicitor, the onus of justifying the refusal 

 is on the vendor {ih.). 



The purchaser can?iot recover eo'penses incurred previously to entering 

 into the cotitract; nor the expense of a survey of the estate made before 

 he knows the title ; nor the expense of a conveyance drawn in anticipa- 

 tion ; nor the extra costs of a suit for specific performance brought by 

 the vendor ; nor losses on the resale of stock prepared for the farm 

 {Hodges v. Litchfield) ; and where a lessee ivith power to alter and improve 

 had an option to purchase, and after laying out money in improvements 

 elected to purchase, and the title proved bad, he was held entitled only 

 to damages for the breach of contract, but not for the expense of im- 

 provements ( Worthington v. Warrington). 



Where mi agent employed for an agreed commission to sell land at a 

 given price succeeds in finding a purchaser at such stipulated price, but tlie 

 principal, from whatever cause, declines to sell, and rescinds the agent's 

 authority, the latter is entitled to sue for a reasonable remuneration for 

 his work and labour, and is not bound to resort to a special action for 

 the wrongful withdrawal of the authority {Priclett v. Badger). In such 

 a case, a contract to pay what is reasonable is implied by the law ; and 

 it is not a question for the jury. And scmhle per Willcs J,, that under 

 such circumstances the proper measure of damages would be the entire 

 amount of the commission agreed for {ib.). 



A contract for tim purchase of land by a company under 8 & 9 Vict. 

 c. 18, is complete when notice to take the land has been served, and the 



