Can any legal experts offer me any advice re EA contract....?

moneybunny123

Thanks to both of you, and all who have contributed. We have given the information to this forum as true as we see it (or it is pointless to ask advice) even copy/paste from 'their' words. It is so interesting that the word "frighten" is used so much with regard to EAs - they do that, they frighten you.

WebGuru

Do not give in to them. If in doubt call a solicitor.

They will back down, especially if you quote the Foxton V Bicknell case which changed everything, even for introduced buyers WITHIN 6 months.

In my conversation I had with an EA over nearly exactly the same thing the convesation went like this:

EA: "We are entitled to a fee"

Me: "No you are not, you don't intoduce the buyer, I did"

EA: "We win every case they take to court"

Me "What, even after the Foxton V Bicknell case"

EA: "O, erm. What do you know about this? erm, no we have not had a case since then"

Me: "That was 2 years ago, so you have had a dispuse since then"

EA: "Silence"

I reminded the EA that if we delayed the sale by 4 weeks, the exchange would be outside of the 6 month introduction period in their contract, so they would get nothing. So if you are 100% sure of the dates, tell them to get stuffed.

FireWyrm

moneybunny123 wrote: »

Thanks to both of you, and all who have contributed. We have given the information to this forum as true as we see it (or it is pointless to ask advice) even copy/paste from 'their' words. It is so interesting that the word "frighten" is used so much with regard to EAs - they do that, they frighten you.

Well, only if you let them. It's called 'business'. You just have to be as hard-nosed as them. The EA is annoyed because you managed to do what they could not and they are just trying to get money out of you on the flimsiest of pretexts. As others have said, if and when the court papers drop through your door, then you can re-assess the situation, but until then, they dont have any legal grounds and they are just hoping that you are a clueless as them when it comes to understanding their own contract. The contract was drawn up by legal experts and I'm guessing is probably pretty standard across the industry. Remember that I could set up as an EA if I wanted to, with no regulation, no legal expertise and nothing but a sweet smile, use that exact same contract off the shelf.

I wasnt saying you were lying about the facts, I was saying that you might be mistaken, or you had omitted some pertinent fact which would change my opinion of the situation. If what you say is true, and EXCHANGE did NOT take place even one day before the 6 months was up, there is nothing they can do about it and waving a document that they clearly dont even understand themselves doesnt change their legal position should this go to court.

And just in case you missed the point of WebGuru's post...here is the pertinent point :

The expression “a purchaser introduced by us” meant a person who became a purchaser as a result of that introduction. Thus, in order to be entitled to a commission Foxtons had to show they had introduced the purchaser to the purchase and not merely to the property.

You could also quote this at them if they get heavy :

Article 57 of Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency (18th edition) states that, at least usually, "where the remuneration of an agent is a commission on a contract to be brought about, he is not entitled to such commission unless his services were the effective cause of the transaction being brought about".

Source : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/419.html

Or this : http://www.clarionsolicitors.com/blog_post.php?blog=332

There....no legal leg to stand on. Go have a drink and relax. You have about as much chance of being sued as I do of winning the lottery.

WebGuru

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article4016567.ece

sonastin

If estate agents worked as hard at selling houses as they seem to do at collecting fees that they think they are owed, none of us would have any cause for complaint!

I had more contact from my EA when they thought I might be selling to one of their "introductions" outside the contract period than I ever had while they were supposed to be actively finding me a buyer. As it happened, the buyer was even less reliable than the EA but I did enjoy stringing them along for a while.

moneybunny123

Thanks again to everyone.

OK, I don't want to post the exact dates on here (you never know who's lurking and reading about your business), but if, for example, I gave the EA two weeks notice on 5th December, when would everyone else deem that the 6 month period ended?

sonastin

Two weeks notice issued on 5th December would expire on 19th December. So the contract terminates on 19th December and the latest interpretation of 6 months after that would be 19th June.

FireWyrm

sonastin wrote: »

Two weeks notice issued on 5th December would expire on 19th December. So the contract terminates on 19th December and the latest interpretation of 6 months after that would be 19th June.

Factually correct, but as per Foxton V Bicknell, the EA is only entitled to their fee if their introduction results in a direct sale. The fact that the OP met the eventual buyer in the street more than 6 months later and then happened to decide to sell to that person demonstrates a clear break between introduction and sale. The EA is screwed on both fronts. They cannot claim that they 'introduced' and therefore you should pay since Foxtons and they cannot claim anything under the 6 month clause either. Tell the EA to stick it.

sonastin

FireWyrm wrote: »

Factually correct, but as per Foxton V Bicknell, the EA is only entitled to their fee if their introduction results in a direct sale. The fact that the OP met the eventual buyer in the street more than 6 months later and then happened to decide to sell to that person demonstrates a clear break between introduction and sale. The EA is screwed on both fronts. They cannot claim that they 'introduced' and therefore you should pay since Foxtons and they cannot claim anything under the 6 month clause either. Tell the EA to stick it.

It is not quite that black-and-white. The Foxtons case did introduce the idea that the agent has to introduce the purchaser to the sale rather than just the property but it was very much in relation to the circumstances of that particular claim. In this case, the EA passed on an offer from the buyer and attempted to negotiate a sale between the buyer and the seller. That is more than Foxtons did for Ms Bicknell. There have been no further cases to approve the Foxtons decision or shed light on how much an EA must do in order to "introduce a buyer to a purchase". However, the Foxtons decision did remove the right to an eternal claim on any viewers, and this time we appear to be outside the "reasonable time scale" included in the contract so it is all a bit academic.

WebGuru

FireWyrm wrote: »

Tell the EA to stick it.

:rotfl::T:j