Pls help... underhand agent cutting in

googler

The OP is in a sole agency agreement with A. If B tries to introduce their buyer (who, let's not forget, has already approached through A), then they have to introduce the buyer to Agent A, since A has sole agency rights to sell the house.

If B is at liberty to bring a buyer straight to the owner, it makes a mockery of the owner signing a sole agency contract with A. The idea of the contract is that one agent (A) has the selling rights. Any offers made have to be to the agent with the selling rights.

If any agent could bring their buyers to any seller, regardless of who they had a contract with, there wouldn't be any point in the contracts......

BobQ

I think the OP is still in a dodgy situation if he cannot get Agent B to legally renounce any claim for commision.

The position of Agent A is quite clear, they are entitled to commission whichever agent introduced a buyer that completes the deal.

Chewmylegoff is quite right that the significance of voiding the agreement with Agent B is somewhat confused if they still claim to be entitled to commission. Also I am not sure on what basis they say a cooling off period applies. They do seem unprofessional (which is probably not illegal, just a breach of an industry code) but I wonder if they are simply trying to lull you into a false sense of security. Say you accept the buyer and proceed with the sale based on their verbal assurances. Once you have exchanged contracts Agent A will claim commission and you are legally bound to pay. If agent B then claims commission what is your grounds for refusing?

You can avoid paying by saying "my partner was not authorised to sign the agreement". This means your partner may be sued. I agree that "perjury" is the wrong word. However, your partner signed a document which probably identified him/her as having the right to sell. I do not know the legal term but I believe signing a contract giving false information renders you liable to pay damages for losses the other party suffers.

I would seek legal advice before proceeding with this buyer. Better still just take the house off the market, find a new agent and tell the agent you will not sell to this particular buyer.

http://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/News/Story/?storyid=1678&type=news_features fails to clarify the matter.

Fire_Fox

The cooling off period is part of the Distance Selling Regulations but this only applies if you don't 'use' the product or service.
"If you're buying services, the cooling-off period starts the day after you agree to go ahead with the service. If you agree with the service provider that the service will start straight away, you waive these cooling-off rights. As with goods you could have longer if requirements under the regulations to give you certain information weren't complied with."
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/buying-services/how-to-cancel-a-contract/your-rights/

googler

Fire_Fox wrote: »

If you agree with the service provider that the service will start straight away, you waive these cooling-off rights.

This waiver has to be written into the contract, however.....

Which brings me back to .... there's no need for Agent B to 'legally renounce their claim for commission' because they never had a claim in the first place.

They brought along a buyer/viewer who'd already approached the owner via Agent A
They didn't have a valid contract with the owner, at a time when Agent A did
They secured an 'agreement/contract' from someone who just happened to be in the house when the viewer and they arrived, without adequate checks to ensure they were dealing with the real owner, and apparently in full knowledge of the owner already being in contract with A


I could go on, but presented with at least the above, if B tried to pursue the owner for a fee through the court, I think any judge would laugh them out of said court. Additionally, the partner has kept copies of the voided agreement, so agent B has cancelled their 'contract' - which also waives any claim to a fee, I'd suggest

As I said at post 12, the whole idea of hiring an agency on a sole agency or sole selling rights basis is that of hiring that one agent to sell for you, and to have the rights to sell for you. If, having hired Agent A, any other agent with a buyer isn't in a position to approach you directly; if they were, there'd be no point in the agreement, because buyers would be coming in via agents C, D and F, for instance......

maninthestreet wrote: »

In this sitatuation, it may be the agent though which the buyer submits their offer that is the agent that gets the commission.

If the owner has a contract with A, offers have to be submitted through A. They're the only ones with the selling rights. A buyer can't merely go to agent C, D or F and submit an offer to them, because they're not actually selling the house and don't have any selling agreement with the owner.....

In general terms, if agent B, C or D has a buyer, they can try 'referring' the buyer to agent A, as a buyer's agent would do in the USA or other territories, and see if they can coax A to share at least some of their commission in reward for bringing the buyer to them, but there's no way that would apply here, because the buyer has already approached A .....

BobQ

googler wrote: »

This waiver has to be written into the contract, however.....

Which brings me back to .... there's no need for Agent B to 'legally renounce their claim for commission' because they never had a claim in the first place.

QUOTE]

You may be right but we do not know what the contract said. They may have cancelled the contract when asked to do so but if they regarded the contract to be valid up until that point then they may try to enforce that right. Why else would they cancel the contract but then say that if the buyer went through with the deal they would claim a commission?

There is no doubt that Agent A has a valid contract. Agent B may still have a contract with someone who did not have the right to sign it and have lost money through being contacted by the buyer.

googler

BobQ wrote: »

You may be right but we do not know what the contract said.

It doesn't matter. Agent A had Sole Agency at the time. Agent B can't have any kind of selling rights until that contract is terminated. Agent B can't receive an offer on the seller's behalf because they don't have any form of agency or selling rights

They may have cancelled the contract when asked to do so but if they regarded the contract to be valid up until that point then they may try to enforce that right. Why else would they cancel the contract but then say that if the buyer went through with the deal they would claim a commission?

Because they were clutching at straws?

There is no doubt that Agent A has a valid contract. Agent B may still have a contract with someone who did not have the right to sign it and have lost money through being contacted by the buyer.

I'd suggest their contract isn't enforceable as they didn't get the owner of the house to sign it.

It's not even an issue for the OP. Agent B should be taking their buyer to Agent A, who has sole agency, and asking for a commission share if they feel they genuinely introduced the buyer. However, since the OP says the buyer contacted Agent A first, I'm sure I know where Agent A will tell them to go.

BobQ

googler wrote: »

I'd suggest their contract isn't enforceable as they didn't get the owner of the house to sign it.

It's not even an issue for the OP. Agent B should be taking their buyer to Agent A, who has sole agency, and asking for a commission share if they feel they genuinely introduced the buyer. However, since the OP says the buyer contacted Agent A first, I'm sure I know where Agent A will tell them to go.

Maybe. But if I signed a contract with you saying that if you introduced a buyer for my house I would pay you a commission and you carried out your part of the deal, I reckon you would have a claim for damages against me if I then said I would not pay you (despite all your efforts) because I did not in fact own the house.

But you may be right that the agent was grasping at straws. Its up to the OP if he and his partner want to take the risk.