New estate agent and old estate agent who gets the fee?

jjlandlord

googler wrote: »

But that offer floundered, so doesn't that suggest Agent X failed to introduce the buyer to the sale, as opposed to the property?

We don't know the ins and outs of what happened.
It seems to me very plausible that the buyer and Agent X where just playing the negotiating game. The fact that the buyer then viewed the property again with Agent Y (perhaps just because he was told that Agent X was no longer handling the sale) suggests that he was still on it.

It is not clear cut, IMHO, which means headache and a solicitor to defend a claim.
Hence negotiation or new buyer, if OP thinks agent X is serious.

Hanky_Panky

googler wrote: »

There was a legal case which may have set a precedent on this, involving one of the big London firms who tried to claim commission as your agent X would, but were denied by the (appeal court) judge.

http://www.theratandmouse.co.uk/weblog/archives/2008/04/foxtons_lose_co.html

http://www.growerfreeman.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ESTATE-AGENTS-FEES-WHO-PAYS1.pdf

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/family/children/no-future-estate-agents-battling-over-introductions

Excellent - this confirms my earlier post. It's the agent who progress the sale to completion that counts in law not the 'introducer'. Whatever the contract may state about this it's not enforceable.

Mallotum_X

I think a court would agree agent X gets commission.

I would tell Y that they need to reach agreement with X as to who gets paid what. (and get it in writing signed by Y and X)

jjlandlord

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Excellent - this confirms my earlier post. It's the agent who progress the sale to completion that counts in law not the 'introducer'. Whatever the contract may state about this it's not enforceable.

I think you should read the decision in details before jumping to conclusions.

Hanky_Panky

jjlandlord wrote: »

I think you should read the decision in details before jumping to conclusions.

No jumping here - I've had direct experience of exactly this situation and the ruling confirms this.

''Richard Singleton, senior solicitor at the London office of Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons, acted for Hamptons''
“One of the basic principles of agency is that you only get a fee if you bring a transaction to a conclusion.”

You seem hung up on what's in the contract. You can put anything you like in a contract which someone may sign but it doesn't mean it's enforceable in law which is the key point here.

jjlandlord

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

You seem hung up on what's in the contract.

No. I have read the actual decision. You should too.

Old_Git

did the buyer pull out ?

pippin06

Old_Git wrote: »

did the buyer pull out ?

No, the situation still stands. I still don't know what to do.

eddddy

pippin06 wrote: »

No, the situation still stands. I still don't know what to do.

Hi pippin

As a first step, try to push the problem back into Agent Y's court... Say that you will only accept the offer if Agent Y and Agent X can agree between themselves on a commission split.


Be careful about relying on the Foxtons Limited v. Pelkey Bicknell & Anr [2008] case (which is linked to in post #27). The court of appeal suggested that if EAs revised their contract terms, they might stand a better chance of winning this type of case. Agent X may have followed the Court of Appeal's advice.

And in any case, you really don't want to get into the hassle of litigation.

TrixA

We were in this situation from the other side (i.e. we wanted to offer on a property that we had initially viewed when listed by another agent). Did some research because I wanted to know whether it would be likely to cause any difficulties with the sale proceeding - although in the event we lost to a higher offer anyway. One of the things I remember reading was that if the original agent decides to make an issue of it, a possible outcome is that the seller will be required to pay full commission to both agents! For that reason I think eddddy's advice is absolutely right - insist that the agents negotiate it, or you don't go ahead with this buyer. It may stick in your throat to give any fee to agent X given you weren't happy with their service but I think you need to view it more objectively.

Also, I'm no legal expert, but I can't understand why it would be necessary for the law to make provision for the agent making the 'introduction', if the definition of introduction was an introduction leading to a sale - in that case, how could there possibly be a dispute? You say that agent X simply arranged a viewing, but presumably there was some advertising and marketing spend which led to that viewing. Also, the argument that agent X was unable to secure an acceptable offer from the buyer seems a bit subjective - difficult to prove that their decision to subsequently put in a higher offer had nothing to do with their discussions with agent X.