Is estate agent contract valid when one owner doesnt sign?

TBeckett100

I am trying to untangle a contract from a national EA.

They only sought one signature on the contract. The estranged wife is refusing to sign the other part. The HIP has been done and they want paying if the house isnt marketed.

Also, in the contract they only took a gas bill as ID. I am certain they should have used more.

Can anyone shed any light...

DVardysShadow

Well, the EA has undertaken work. So they have to be paid. If the husband signed, he would be responsible, unless he made it clear to the EA that there was another party that no work may be commenced until estranged wife gives her assent. I think if you are trying to get support for the idea that he can get out of the contract because there is another owner not known to the EA, or because the ID was 'not good enough', you are going to get short shrift here.

TBeckett100

they arranged the HIP so they knew that there were two vendors yet continued to market the property. surely a little unethical.

DVardysShadow

TBeckett100 wrote: »

they arranged the HIP so they knew that there were two vendors yet continued to market the property. surely a little unethical.

So basically, they did the HIP without being told there were 2 vendors, so husband owes for that. They then went on to market in the knowledge that there were 2 vendors, but with the signature of 1. Unless they were told by husband that both owners would be required sign up, then EA is quite reasonably expecting that the person who did sign has authority to sign.

There is nothing unethical here on the part of the EA. They have a contract with a person to market a house, they have done that and they expect paying. The only unethical thing I can see is someone engaging an EA to do work, purporting to have authority to sell the house and letting the EA continue without having the authority of the other owner. Husband was in a far better position to know about estranged wife and to get her consent or resolve that her consent was withheld.

Cannon_Fodder

Go on the market, decline any offers (assuming you don't want to sell or incur their fees), then extract yourself from the contract as per its terms...?

HIP will probably have to be paid for.

Doozergirl

My EAs contract contains a pretty little clause in there around failing to notify the EA of reasons why the house is basically unsaleable. I've crossed it through on mine.

But they do not need both signatures. You instruct the sale - if you can't actually sell it, it's your own problem. ID is for money laundering - it's got nothing to do with the contract you have signed.

I'd rather persuade the ex than the EA.

david29dpo

TBeckett100 wrote: »

they arranged the HIP so they knew that there were two vendors yet continued to market the property. surely a little unethical.

Most agents farm the HIP out so wont know whats in it and (rightly) wont particularly care. An agent it not the place to air you domestic problems. As said above, the agent has done nothing wrong.

googler

"I am trying to untangle a contract from a national EA. ... They only sought one signature on the contract. "

You mean - you didn't TELL them that there was another owner? Why not? Don't you think that might be relevant to the sale?

"The estranged wife is refusing to sign the other part. The HIP has been done and they want paying if the house isnt marketed."

Assuming you're the husband of the estranged wife, I'd say you're responsible for paying them, as you signed, and you didn't seem to give them any reason to believe you weren't the sole owner, and may also have actively concealed this fact from them.

MissMotivation

Although the contract can be signed by one party, it is normally best practice to get it signed by both parties.

Most contracts I have seen have a clause that states that the person signing the contract has full responsibility for paying the fees.

TBeckett100

Thanks for the replies. dont get too hung up on the circumstances. the actual reasoning behind why one person does not consent is different. the husband was actually becoming senile and no one asked the wife.

googler

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. dont get too hung up on the circumstances. the actual reasoning behind why one person does not consent is different. the husband was actually becoming senile and no one asked the wife.

Dare I suggest that if you'd said this in the first place, the following posts wouldn't have 'got hung up on the circumstances', and might not have made the assumption that I did, i.e. that you're the one person who signed (for your first post does read that way....) ?