Date:  19971027
                                                 Docket:  24392
                                             Registry: Kamloops




           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA



BETWEEN:

           JOHN ROY TURNER and PRINCIPLE REALTY LTD.


                                                      PLAINTIFF


AND:

                JOHN McCLURE and MARIAN McCLURE


                                                      DEFENDANT



                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

                            OF THE

               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LAMPERSON



Counsel for the Plaintiff:                      Frank R. Scordo


Counsel for the Defendant:               Robert McDiarmid, Q.C.


Place and Date of Hearing:                       Kamloops, B.C.
                                         October 9 and 14, 1997


[1]  The plaintiffs seek payment of a real estate commission in
the sum of $27,000 plus applicable taxes allegedly owing to
them from the sale of the Chase Country Inn, which is a motel
that belonged to the defendants.  The questions arising from
this litigation are:
     1.   Even though the listing contract had expired at the
          time of the sale, were the plaintiffs entitled to a
          commission because they were an effective cause of
          the sale?
     2.   If not, were the plaintiffs entitled to compensation
          on a quantum meruit basis?

[2]  Principle Realty is the alter ego of Mr. Turner and
consequently I will refer to them as either the plaintiff or
Mr. Turner.

[3]  The defendants listed the Chase Country Inn for sale with
the plaintiff at a price of $700,000.  According to the listing
contract the defendants were to pay the plaintiff a commission
of 4% upon the sale of the property.  That listing expired on
June 30, 1996.

[4]  During the morning of Tuesday, July 2nd, the eventual
purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. Kent, stopped at the Chase Country Inn
to ask directions to another motel which was listed for sale in
the Village of Chase.  After looking at that motel they
returned to the defendants' motel and asked a chamber maid
whether the Chase Country Inn was for sale.  She did not know,
but in the absence of the defendants, took it upon herself to
show the Kents various units and to give them the defendants'
business card.  The Kents then drove to Radium Hot Springs to
look at another motel which they were interested in purchasing.
That evening Mr. Kent telephoned the defendant, John McClure,
from Radium Hot Springs and inquired whether the Chase Country
Inn was for sale.  Mr. McClure answered in the affirmative and
said that he wanted $700,000 for the property.  Mr. Kent then
asked for the financial statements for the motel.  Because Mr.
McClure did not have those statements readily available, he
suggested to Mr. Kent that he obtain this information from the
plaintiff, who would still have it in his possession.  On
July 3rd the Kents tried repeatedly to get in touch with Mr.
Turner and finally succeeded in doing so in the late afternoon.

[5]  They told Mr. Turner that they wanted to see the financial
statements since they intended to view the property again on
the next day.  Mr. Turner said that he intended to go to his
cottage on Shuswap Lake that day and that since it was on his
way he would meet them at the motel around 1:00 p.m.  He then
telephoned John McClure and told him the same thing.  Everyone,
save Mrs. McClure, met at the motel on the following day, being
Thursday, July 4th.  Mr. McClure, accompanied by Mr. Turner,
showed the Kents around the motel.  Because Mr. Turner had not
brought the financial records with him as expected, he was
again asked to fax those documents to the Kents.  The Kents
were left with the impression that this would be done the same
afternoon.  Nothing further happened until the late evening of
Saturday, July 6th when the Kents sent the plaintiffs the
following facsimile:

July 6, 1996

Attention:  J. R. Turner
            c/o Royal LePage

Please be advised due to your slow response to our
inquiries on "Chase Country Inn" we do not want your
services as the agent on our behalf.

Yours truly

Linda Kent          (Linda Kent)
Reg Kent            (Reg Kent)

[6]  That same day Mrs. Kent called Mr. McClure.  She told him
that she had not received any financial information from
Mr. Turner but did not tell Mr. McClure that she had sent a
message to Mr. Turner telling him that she no longer wanted to
deal with him.  Mr. McClure, after several attempts to page
Mr. Turner, spoke to him that evening.

[7]  On July 7th Mr. Turner telephoned Mrs. Kent to see what
the problem was.  She confirmed that she wanted no more
dealings with him.  After that Mr. Turner did in fact fax the
financial information to the Kents.  The information written in
by Mr. Turner with respect to the revenue received by the Chase
Country Inn during the winter of 1994 and 1995 was incorrect in
that it was not as large as he suggested.  There is no
suggestion that this was done deliberately.  He also indicated
quite correctly that the actual income of the motel was greater
than the financial statements indicated.  This was Mr. Turner's
last involvement with the transaction.

[8]  Towards the middle of July the Kents made an offer
directly to the McClures to purchase the motel for $650,000.
That offer was refused.  At this time Mr. McClure telephoned
Turner and told him that he had turned down a $650,000 offer
from the Kents, that he was very busy and that he did not want
any potential purchasers brought to his motel.

[9]  The Kents visited the motel once more and on July 23rd
made an offer of $675,000, which the McClures accepted on
August 1st.

[10] Mr. Turner alleges that over the years there was an
ongoing business relationship between himself and the
defendants and that he was involved in all their land
transactions.  He also says that he played a significant role
in advising the defendants that they subdivide off from the
motel property certain lands which were being used as a
recreational vehicle park.  It should be noted that the
defendants in each of these instances were the purchasers of
property and consequently paid no commission to Mr. Turner.
With respect to obtaining different titles to the motel and the
recreational park, I accept Mr. McClure's testimony that
although he spoke to Mr. Turner, it was he who contacted the
surveyors and took care of the actual subdivision, and that Mr.
Turner was not involved.  I also accept the defence evidence
that Mr. Turner indicated to both Mr. Kent and Mr. McClure that
he would attend the meeting on July 4th only because he was
going to Shuswap Lake in any event. I am satisfied that neither
Mr. McClure nor the Kents sought Mr. Turner's attendance, even
though they did not object to him being there.  It is also
clear the Kents came across the Chase Country Inn by
happenstance and that Mr. Turner did not introduce them to the
property or to the defendants.

[11] The burden is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate on the
balance of probabilities that he was "an effective cause of the
sale" of the motel.  He has not discharged this burden.  He did
not introduce the buyers to the sellers or bring the property
to the buyers' attention.  As a matter of fact, it is clear
that the Kents did not require Mr. Turner's involvement and
that after July 6th they wanted nothing more to do with him.  I
am satisfied that Mr. Turner did not materially contribute to
the eventual sale of the motel.  Because the listing had
expired and Mr. Turner was not the causa causans of the sale,
it follows that he is not entitled to a commission.  He did
nothing after sending the financial information to the Kents on
July 8th.

[12] Nor do I think that the plaintiff is entitled to
compensation on the basis of quantum meruit.  Where quantum
meruit arises outside of a contract, the following principles
of unjust enrichment apply:
     (a)  an enrichment;
     (b)  a corresponding deprivation;
     (c)  the absence of any juristic reason for such
          enrichment.

[13] Thus the efforts and services of a real estate agent may
entitle that agent to compensation even though there is no
existing listing contract.  The plaintiff must, however,
establish that the defendants received a benefit as a result of
the plaintiff's actions.  With regard to the benefit received
in the context of real estate transactions, the test in B.C.
appears to be "whether the services either caused or materially
contributed to the sale".  Century 21 Gold Team Realty Ltd. and
Pirie v. 443979 B.C. Ltd. (1996), Vanc. A933924.

[14] Again, it seems to me that Mr. Turner has failed to
establish that he provided services which benefitted the
defendants which would entitle him to compensation.

[15] Accordingly the plaintiff's case is dismissed with costs.


                                   "G.W. Lamperson"


                                   LAMPERSON J.