Please define "introduction" by estate agent

MrsC_5

Can anybody please tell me what constitutes an "introduction" in relation to sole selling rights? To be specific, if a vendor cancels his contract with an agent, then goes on to sell his property privately 2 years later, can the agent claim he "introduced" the purchaser by sending out sales particulars to everyone on his database during the contract period, and the eventual purchaser turned out to be one of the recipients?

Bossyboots

How did the vendor obtain the details of the purchaser? How did the purchaser know the house was for sale at that moment in time?

I think a vendor would be hard pressed to dispute an introduction has taken place if the vendor and purchaser only obtained each other's details at the time when the property was originally on the market. There would be a get out if the original contract stated a period during which the introduction fee would apply (as there is if you employ someone who previously temped for you) but if not, it may well be that the estate is entitled to claim an introduction even after all this time.

Doozergirl

Do you have an agent really trying that on with you? It certainly doesn't sound like the sort of thing that a reputable agent would do. How could they even know who was buying the property after two years off the market? Did the person even view the property with them originally?

Just my personal opinion (I'm sure someone will have a more educated one soon!) but I doubt they can ask you to pay up, considering that the contract had been cancelled such a long time before. I think the contract would have to be quite clear as to what the position would be after any period of time for them to have a leg to stand on if they took the vendor to court.

When I was thinking of changing agents, the new agent said that the old agent had 28 days to produce a buyer from previous viewers, otherwise the commission went to the new agent.

Doozergirl

Doozergirl wrote:

Just my personal opinion (I'm sure someone will have a more educated one soon!)

And lo, the person with the more educated answer did arrive and beat me to it, even!

MrsC_5

Doozergirl wrote:

Do you have an agent really trying that on with you? It certainly doesn't sound like the sort of thing that a reputable agent would do. How could they even know who was buying the property after two years off the market? Did the person even view the property with them originally?

I have a very interesting story to tell. It's a long story and I'm just going out to work now so I will post later. Please watch out for my story, you won't believe what's happening to me. I really need to share this.

Bossyboots

MrsC wrote:

I have a very interesting story to tell. It's a long story and I'm just going out to work now so I will post later. Please watch out for my story, you won't believe what's happening to me. I really need to share this.

Once you have posted the whole story, then it should be easier to see who holds the upper hand. Will watch out for your post and see if I can help.

silvercar

Over two years ago a friend was looking for a house in the area. i made an introduction to a mutual friend who was selling. The vendors' EA demanded his fee claiming that he had sent details of the property 8 months previously. Even though no viewing had taken place at that time he said he had showed that the property was for sale. My friend (the buyer) said that couldn't be possible as they were looking at properties upto £260k and the price at that time was £310k, so either the EA was stupid to send details so far out of their range or they hadn't actually sent details. The vendor and buyer agreed a price on the basis that there were no EA fees.
Then the EA sent a solicitor's letter to the vendors' solicitor demanding their fee. I said I was prepared to go to court and say I had introduced them if it helped but the vendors' solicitor advised they would have to pay the fee!

MrsC_5

Bossyboots wrote:

Once you have posted the whole story, then it should be easier to see who holds the upper hand. Will watch out for your post and see if I can help.

OK here goes :
I owned a business for 18 years and in 2001 decided to call it a day, so I marketed the premises with a very reputable commercial agent on a 'sole selling rights' agreement. The minimum contract period with the agent was for 6 months, and I paid £1100 up front to cover advertising costs etc. I was told which publications would be used to advertise the business for sale and also that it would be posted on the agent's website. But after 6 months, nothing was happening, no interest at all from anyone, so I decided to take it off the market and carry on trading as usual. I gave the required notice to the agent in writing and that, as far as I was concerned, was that - business as usual.
Then 2 years later, in 2003, I was approached by a person who owned a similar business half a mile away, in fact I suppose you could say we were competitors, we knew each other on a business level. He asked me if I would consider selling as he was looking to expand his business and my premises would be perfect for him, due to the location etc. I told him it was not for sale but if he made me an offer I couldn't refuse, then I would consider it. So he made me a good offer and I accepted, and went on to complete without any problems. Throughout our negotiations, I never mentioned that I had tried to sell the business 2 years previously, and he never mentioned if he knew it had been for sale previously.
About 6 months after the sale was completed, I received a letter from the agent, saying he had found out I had sold my business to a client of his and now claimed his commission. At first I thought it was all a big mistake, so I contacted the agent for clarification and he said that at the time he was marketing my business, he had sent out sales particulars to everyone on his database who owned similar types of businesses, and my buyer happened to be one of them. He therefore claimed he "introduced" the buyer via the sending of the sales particulars. But at that time, in 2001, my buyer (amongst many other people apparently) never responded or asked for further information, or an appointment to view, simply because he wasn't interested at the time, and indeed hadn't asked for the sales particulars. Nevertheless, the agent went on to sue me for his commission and won his case. I had a Barrister representing me, who immediately requested permission to appeal the decision from the Recorder. Permission was denied. So I applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and was granted unconditional leave to appeal. I am now awaiting a hearing date. My Barrister says the fact I have been granted leave to appeal is a good indicator of success, as the Court of Appeal will not hear hopeless cases.
I am absolutely astounded that an agent can hold me to ransom like this, claiming that he "introduced" someone to me, who I already knew, who already knew me, just because he sent out an advertisement 2 years earlier. It transpires he sent the sales particulars to dozens of people at the time, but never told me.
So that's my story up to now, what do you think?

kinster_2

You said you cancelled the agreement in writing. Shouldn't that be it?

I had a similar case with a residential property. I cancelled the agreement in writing and after the notice period sold to someone that was NOT introduced by the EA. The EA kept bombarding me with phone calls saying that he knew I sold my property and wanted his fee, so I told him to get lost and that was that.

Bossyboots

I agree with kinster, provided the cancellation was in the terms set out in your original agreement with the agent.

I am amazed the Court found for the estate agent as I cannot see that the agent did actually introduce the buyer under the terms of your original agreement with him. Were you given an indication of why the Court believed the agreement was still valid? The barrister is correct that being granted leave is usually a good indicator of your chances of success.

MrsC_5

Bossyboots wrote:

Were you given an indication of why the Court believed the agreement was still valid?

Because of the following clause in the contract :
"if contracts for the sale of the business are unconditionally exchanged after the expiry of the period during which we had sole selling rights but to a purchaser who was introduced to you by anyone during that period or with whom we had negotiations about the business during that period, then you will be liable to pay an agency fee"

The emphasis was on the "introduction" issue throughout. The Recorder chose to interpret the agent's act of sending out sales particulars to all and sundry as an "introduction". Beggars belief.......

As an aside, my Barrister was so outraged at the decision of the Court, he immediately offered his services at Appeal free of charge. He discussed the case with his Head of Chambers, a very eminent QC who is quite well known, and he also has agreed to lead my Barrister in this appeal, at no charge to me. I take this as an indication of their optimism, but still I am unsure if I should go ahead with the appeal, as costs are mounting on the Respondent's side and I would be liable for these if the appeal is dismissed.
The agent is now making moves to try to settle out of court, Mediation has been mentioned, but I really don't know what to do. The amount of money I stand to lose is very scary, I would have to sell my home if I lost the appeal. I know my legal advisors can't really tell me what to do, it's got to be my decision, so any advice/opinions are appreciated.