Philbrick v. Chase

The Court correctly charged that the legal duty of the plaintiff consisted in being the efficient cause of procuring “a customer willing and able to buy upon the terms proposed by the owner.” “ ‘His undertaking was to procure a customer able and willing to buy.’ Wilson v. Atwood, 81 N. H. 61, 65.” Russo v. Slawsby, 84 N. H. 89, 91. See also, Toohey v. Davis, 85 N. H. 80. In Russo v. Slawsby, supra, 90, it was stated that the requirement of readiness was sufficiently covered by those of ability and willingness and need not be separately mentioned. If an agent is the effective cause of a…