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

moneybunny123

No EA views???

must-resist-ebay

I doubt you'll get an estate agent prepared to say you're not liable for the fees - it wouldn't be in their interests to do so

If it does go to court I would also avoid mentioning the stress condition, it is not relevant to your liability (or not) under the contract.

I still stand by my comments made in my earlier post, I read the contract as having no expiry on liability to pay if a purchaser was introduced during the period of contract and the six months reference only applies to the period under which the full fee is payable.

I think the fact that the EA has rejected your offer of 25% and has stated he wants the full fee could work in your favour if it does get to court, if the court interpret the contract as I have then it would seem that the EA's insistence of the full fee is against the terms of their own contract.

moneybunny123

Thank you MRE. My problem with that is the contract says "...introduced during Sole Agency period......" and the introduction was after this period - hence I am confused. It seems it can mean whatever they want it to mean?!

Surely there must be a reasonable time period, or do they go on to own them forever?

They didn't reject the 25% offer, they ignored it.

Regarding stress; this will go to Ombudsman first and that will delay any legal attack from EA, the stress issue is a big deal as I am only a consumer and EA has taken over 7 weeks to mess this about, trying to wear me down through stress. Some dirty tactics employed by the EA in this time, failure to produce the complaints procedure until they felt ready to (4 asks), contacting the buyers solicitor about Exchange date, though they tell me it makes no difference (solicitor refused to speak to them as it was none of their business, not been involved in process), putting in a letter to me that buyers solicitor was on their side, buyers solicitor has told me it is a made up sentence etc etc.

must-resist-ebay

From what you say the buyer was introduced during the sole agency period, and in fact made a low offer. Playing devils advocate for a minute the EA is likely to say that they introduced the buyer who made an initial low offer (as is the norm in a buyers market) which you rejected, then conducted private negotiations directly, terminated the contract then waited until you thought your liability to pay them had expired before exchanging contracts.

IME estate agents are mostly scum of the lowest order and will try every dirty trick in the book to screw you over, if you've got evidence of their bullying tactics then the ombudsman is the place to go (or watchdog if they are a chain )

moneybunny123

Well I can prove that is not true, it was a long time in the future and I have re-contact correspondence saved which shows it wasn't 'cooked up', so I'd be happy for them to base their argument on that view The buyer had two failed buys on other houses (due to surveyor reports) which cost them each time.

As you have seen, the contract says "...introduced during our sole agency period..." which is 12 weeks (says in contract), then it is just normal agency unless terminated. The intro was outside of that SA 12 weeks, the eventual sale was 7 months after the termination of services. What is it I have done wrong?

A question (for all): Did they sell my house?

googler

moneybunny123 wrote: »

As you have seen, the contract says "...introduced during our sole agency period..." which is 12 weeks (says in contract), then it is just normal agency unless terminated. The intro was outside of that SA 12 weeks ....

Are you sure it's not a sole agency contract with a minimum period of 12 weeks? i.e. they're sole agents until termination?

What do you mean by 'normal agency'? Is this specified in the contract?

moneybunny123

It says, and as per is ambiguous, "...a Sole Agency period of 12 weeks and then the agency will continue" and we verbally let them know that we may use twin agency after this, they said "fine" and only written requirement was agency/service. 'Verbal' ok, but it is hardly as if they are showing a "whiter-than-white" front so far?

googler

I read that as the (sole) agency will continue after the 12 weeks has elapsed. Don't you?

moneybunny123

Well no I don't Why not put that word "sole" then? Same sentence refers to Sole Agency and Agency and that implies, to me, a difference? Ambiguous? Of course it is, they love it and they love to twist and argue it. Either way did they introduce a purchase that happened 7 months later, thus selling the house? You argue, and I appreciate it googler, that they have claim to "some fee" - is that correct?

googler

moneybunny123 wrote: »

Well no I don't Why not put that word "sole" then? Same sentence refers to Sole Agency and Agency and that implies, to me, a difference? Ambiguous? Of course it is

'the agency', not 'agency' is referred to as a continuation in the same sentence as 'sole agency' - my interp is that they refer to one and the same. For example;

"I'll keep the red bike for 12 weeks and you can ride the bike later"


The second ref doesn't mention 'red' - would you argue that the speaker here is referring to two different bikes?