Normally a Contract of Sale carries a clause which states that the purchaser has not been introduced to the property by any party other than the real estate agent mentioned on the Contract of Sale.
If the court finds it otherwise the buyer would, I would think, be liable for the second lot of brokerage.
I imagine you have had legal advice ?
I would be surprised this would be the first case of its kind. Has a search been done regarding similar previopus court cases ?
Pisces
Without any doubt the agent has a legal right to his commission. If you read your agency agreement you will see that any buyer who is introduced to you through the agent will enable the agent to claim a commission, no matter whether he buys during or after the term of the agreement. (See Waynel’s post).
Go on Yack, test it in court I dare you. If you win I would be amazed.
If the buyer is willing to or can substantiate that the first agent did not respond to her second approach, and you as vendor can substantiate that the first agent did not pass on to you her renewed approach, then the first agent is not entitled to the commission because he is most likely guilty of firstly “not acting in the vendor’s best interests” and secondly, not acting at all. Try and collect a commission on either of those, and the agent might have a case to answer himself. good luck
cheers
thecrest[thumbsupanim]thecrest | Tony Neale - Statewide Motel Brokers
http://www.statewidemotelbrokers.com.au
Email Me | Phone Meselling motels in NSW
JParry, you said :
“Without any doubt the agent has a legal right to his commission.”
Nothing is ever ‘without doubt’.
The courts are full of people who are fighting others and both parties are certain that they are right.
Amazingly, half of them are proven to be wrong at the end.
“If you read your agency agreement you will see that any buyer who is introduced to you through the agent will enable the agent to claim a commission, no matter whether he buys during or after the term of the agreement.<<
ANYONE can make a claim. Whether such a claim will stand up in court that is another story.
It seems commom sense that a lot depends on how much water has flowed under the bridge since the buye originally was introduced to the property.
Yack, you haven’t told us as yet whether or not your contract carried a clause stating that the buyer hasn’t been introduced to the property by any other agent than the one mentioned on the Contract of Sale.
If so then it appears as if you’ve got nothing much to worry about. If the contract didn’t carry such a clause I would look towards your solicitor for compensation as he was clearly negligent.
Pisces
Thank you for the comments.
Both real estate agents are at fault as is the conveyancer, there appears to be a habit of rubber stamping without providing necessary advice to the vendor or purchaser.
My defence does not rest purely on ‘effective cause of sale’, there is a bigger issue involved with this and I will bring this to the fore during my defence of the claim. If successful there will probably some reprocussions as this will affect all agreements.
This Thursday is the first round, and I’m sure the next two will be interesting.As said earlier I will keep you informed.
Cheers
BobR I Allen
Bob,
Good luck….
Seems like the first agent did not perform the duties he was contracted to… and has a case to answer of his own…. dereliction of duty…..
If another agent comes along, and he don’t like it… he should be suing the agent, and, not you….
anyway…. seems like you have a good case to defend yourself…..
All the best… look forward to hearing a positive outcome for you…
Cheers
Scott
Bob
Call Jenman and ask him what he reckons. He reckons he fights for the consumer against estate agents. Ask him what he reckons.
In no way – should you have to pay two commissions. There is something seriously wrong with the real estate industry if thats the case.
Also have you had an opinion from your local real estate institute like REIV?
>>If another agent comes along, and he don’t like it… he should be suing the agent, and, not you….<<
As the first agent didn’t have a contract with the second agent he cannot sue him Scott.
It looks to me more as if Bob’s solicitor was at fault by not protecting his client (Bob).
Then again, we aren’t in possession of all the facts.
Going to court is never a pleasant experience as
the only eventual real winners are the solicitors on both sides.Pisces
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
