Estate Agent 'Introduction' and Commission

amblondon

MHawk01 wrote: »

(1) But as i have now pointed out it seems that my particular contract covers the situation I have outlined and I will have to pay up (if they find out). Fair enough - I entered into this agreement and will have to abide by it.

...

(2) From an ethical point of view ... I do not however see why I should pay for their services with regards to agreeing a sale with the buyer as this is a feat that I have accomplished myself.

...

(3) Do we really believe that EA's had such moral concerns back when times were 'good'? This is all about the bottom line as far as I'm concerned - cold hard cash without sentiment for struggling agents.

[I have edited the post to keep the bits relevant to my response]

1. Exactly. You signed the contract. You shouldn't have done so if you weren't prepared to stick to it.

2. What exactly is "ethical" about your point? The fact that you included "(if they find out)" tells me all I need to know.

3. Completely irrelevant. Again, you signed a contract of your own free will having presumably read and understood the terms.

Mallotum_X

Dont worry OP, estate agents always try every trick in the book, no harm in trying to check if legally you can try a trick back.

Make sure the agent does their job now and does all the appropriate checks etc, make sure they actually earn their fee.

MHawk01

Thank you Mallotum X.

To the rest of you who have failed to appreciate what's going on here and come on now let's be honest, you haven't - there's no two ways about it, bore off. You're clearly all too interested in 'thanking' each other and getting your post points up - good luck with that, I'll assess your reps from time to time to see how you're all getting on.

Moderator: Thanks for your views they made me laugh - not out loud mind, more of a 'pfft' and a cocky smirk. Is it not your role to moderate these forums with a degree of impartiality, and an appreciation for both sides to a discussion regardless of your own sensitivities? I suggest that in future you take a step back and re-evaluate what your 'job' is on here. Are you an Estate Agent? Go on admit it you zany ding-bat. Have a drink or two and relax - I suggest a nice bottle of Vinsobres, Les Cornuds, Perrin (2006 is a great year). This fragrant and fruity little ditzy has perfectly balanced flavours - perhaps you could learn a little from it?

I refuse to lower myself to the schoolgirls-in-the-playground mentality that you and your cronies have adopted in a transparent attempt at bullying. I will not debase myself further by addressing you all with the crude, offensive language that you deserve.

Instead I say this - may a thousand fleas infest your undergarments.

Toodles x:rotfl::money:

sonastin

The thread seems to have descended into childishness but in the interests of informing others who are in a similar situation...

Treat Foxton v Bicknell with care. It is only one case. In the high court. It hasn't been through higher courts. It hasn't been tested by subsequent cases. The particular circumstances surrounding the case led the judge to find against the EA in that situation but it is not yet clear which of those circumstances are important in forming the law of "introducing the purchaser to the purchase".

Remember...

-Bicknell did pay an EA - the case was whether a second commission was due to Foxton. A judge might not be so easy going on a vendor who is trying to avoid all EA commission.
-The contract between Bicknell and Foxton had been terminated. Their contract included an eternal "selling to a buyer introduced by us" clause. The judge expressed a very strong opinion that the obligation couldn't continue ad infinitum which is why most EAs now include a 6 month time limit on it. No one has tested the effect of this time limit in the courts.

These facts should be borne in mind by anyone seeking to avoid paying EA fees based on the judgment in Foxton v Bicknell.

Sponge

I'd like to add my comments/questions to this thread as it seems logical to do so, rather than start a new one...

My house has been on the market with estate agent 1 (EA 1) for just over 14 weeks. I decided I wanted to try a new agent, so gave my 2 weeks notice at the 12 week mark (12 weeks was the minimum term) and as of Sunday, 24th June, I am out of contract with them. However, the for sale board is still outside my house and we are still listed on Rightmove with them.

My contract has, had, the usual clauses "selling to a buyer introduced by us" etc, although there is no time limit clause like the one mentioned by sonastin.

Last week EA 1 got us a viewing, which took place last Thursday. The couple are going in to speak to the EA's mortgage advisors later this week and the EA says they are very interested in our house. I will call them potential buyer #1, PB1. PB1 registered interest with EA 1 and viewed whilst I was still under contract.

On Sunday (last day of contract) EA 1 called us to say they had someone that wanted to view our house the next day. We thought what the heck and took the viewing. They are also, apparently, very interested. PB2. PB2 registered interest whilst I was under contract, but viewing occured whilst I was out of contract.

To complicate matters further, EA 1 has just called us today to say they have someone else that wants to view this Thursday. They are also very much interested. PB3. PB3 registered interested and (potential - I haven't agreed to it yet) viewing occured whilst I was out of contract with EA 1.

I am inclined to regard the keen interest of all these parties as just a last ditched attempt by the EA to get a sale before we relist with a new agent. (Which is understandable.)

That's three slightly different scenarios.

(I tell you, we've had more viewings since giving our notice than we've had in the preceeding 12 weeks!)

I want to instruct a new EA and will be dropping the price of my house at the same time, but I'm worried that any of these interested parties, and any of the others that have been to see the house, or even just had details posted to them, will see the new listing, be attracted by the new, lower price and make an offer via the new EA (EA2).

I'm worried that EA 1 will claim "ownership" of these sales as they first introduced them to our house and make life difficult. (I'm a worrier.)

And this is where I come to the aforementioned case law. I came across it, like the OP did, when conducting research into switching EAs and fights over fees, etc. It was the term "introduced to purchase" and the bits about EA sending details to people, or even negotiating with them, not meaning anything if it didn't result in a purchase. But then, the terms EAs use in their contracts are, as I understand it, agreed by governing bodies, etc and yet appear to condradict the ruling of the court in the above case law, i.e. simply introducing a person(s) is not sufficient. Although I do admit I could be completely misunderstanding this, hence the post here.

No one made an offer for my house whilst we were actually with EA 1. If any of the above people do make an offer while we're with EA 2 then will EA 1 be able to pursue us for their fee? If I understand the case and the posts above regarding it, then they won't as their efforts didn't actually result in a sale. They just introduced them to the property, not the sale.

I am not trying to avoid all fees.

I need to decide on whether or not to agree to the viewing on Thursday. I'm not yet with EA 2, so can't even tell EA 1 to forward the interested party to our new agent - not that they would, of course!