How can I have a contract here?

visidigi

So this one had me puzzled.

Holiday rental - the online website states in the terms and conditions that they act as an agent and that my contract is with the owner.

But here's the thing:

I book the rental on the 'agents' website.
The 'agent' charges a booking fee for the booking.
The 'agent then sends the information for the rental including access information.
The 'agent' then says if there are any issues at all to get in touch with them for them to react.
The 'agent' then says that if you want compensation for problems that the owner has to agree and pay these.
The 'agent' also charges a % fee to the owner for the rental.

At no point does any of the following happen:
You never get the name nor the contact information for the owner.
You pay the agent the deposit and the balance - no interaction at all with the owner.
There is no further documentation at the property for you to sign or agree with (which is why the likes of hotels.com IS an agent, as when you get to the property you get the forms and sign the disclaimer and liability forms).

So here's my question - can I have a contract with a party I have no relation nor access to? Surely my contract is with the agent and therefore that's where the liability and ownership of the situation sits.

What do you think? TIA for any advice you can offer.

Lomast

They are acting as agents and therefore have authorisation from the owner to enter into a contract on their behalf

davidmcn

Liability stays with the agent until such time as they tell you who their client is.

deethebee

Your contract is definitely with the agent. It's kind of like buying from a shop and them saying your contract is with the manufacturer of the item you've bought. You haven't exchanged any money with the owner, only the agent, so your contract is with them.

wesleyad

deethebee wrote: »

Your contract is definitely with the agent. It's kind of like buying from a shop and them saying your contract is with the manufacturer of the item you've bought. You haven't exchanged any money with the owner, only the agent, so your contract is with them.

As david says there are some technicalities that would mean contract stays with agent, but as a whole there is nothing from stopping you having a contract with someone you have never met nor paid monies to. The obvious example is with tenancies, most tenants have never met nor paid to their landlords, yet have a contract with them.

deethebee

wesleyad wrote: »

As david says there are some technicalities that would mean contract stays with agent, but as a whole there is nothing from stopping you having a contract with someone you have never met nor paid monies to. The obvious example is with tenancies, most tenants have never met nor paid to their landlords, yet have a contract with them.

If you're renting through an agency and the owner of the house isn't involved at all then the contract would be with the agency, unless it's the landlord signing the agreement and whose name is on the contract in which case the agency is just working on their behalf. I'm not sure how you can have a contract with someone who you haven't formed a legal agreement with. I could be wrong, but this isn't the way I understand contracts to work. Whoever your agreement is with is who your contract is with. The terms you agree to are the terms of the person making and signing the contract. I don't see how someone who isn't named on a contract could enforce the terms of said contract. Generally if you book a holiday through an agent then your contract is with the agent and not the airline or the hotel. I think the main point is whoever is named on the contract.

davidmcn

deethebee wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can have a contract with someone who you haven't formed a legal agreement with. I could be wrong, but this isn't the way I understand contracts to work.

You are wrong. Contracts can be formed by the parties' agents e.g. in Scottish house purchases, the contract is normally formed by an offer and acceptance signed by the parties' solicitors, acting as their agents. The contract is between the buyer and seller, not the solicitors' firms. That's not relying on a peculiarly Scottish principle, it could happen elsewhere.

deethebee

davidmcn wrote: »

You are wrong. Contracts can be formed by the parties' agents e.g. in Scottish house purchases, the contract is normally formed by an offer and acceptance signed by the parties' solicitors, acting as their agents. The contract is between the buyer and seller, not the solicitors' firms. That's not relying on a peculiarly Scottish principle, it could happen elsewhere.

So you're saying a contract can be formed by 2 parties who aren't mentioned on the contract? How is that possible? Someone signing on your behalf is a little bit different than the solicitor's name being on the contract and them signing it. If the contract states it's between the 2 clients and the solicitors are just signing on their behalf then obviously it's between the 2 people mentioned in the contract.

davidmcn

deethebee wrote: »

How is that possible? Someone signing on your behalf is a little bit different than the solicitor's name being on the contract and them signing it. If the contract states it's between the 2 clients and the solicitors are just signing on their behalf then obviously it's between the 2 people mentioned in the contract.

Because that's how the law of agency works. The contract is between the two solicitors firms, but it's also clear from the terms of the contract that they're both contracting as agents for their clients.

DoaM

davidmcn wrote: »

Because that's how the law of agency works. The contract is between the two solicitors firms, but it's also clear from the terms of the contract that they're both contracting as agents for their clients.

Therein lies the nub of the issue - was this clear in the OP's situation?

deethebee

davidmcn wrote: »

Because that's how the law of agency works. The contract is between the two solicitors firms, but it's also clear from the terms of the contract that they're both contracting as agents for their clients.

Right, and I already said that working on someone's behalf is a bit different to having 2 parties making an agreement between themselves and signing for themselves. The clients would be named in the contract and the solicitors would be authorised to sign on their behalf, so it's as good as those 2 parties making the agreement between themselves and signing themselves. It's not really the same as purchasing a service from someone who is mentioned in the contract, but then saying your contract is with an unnamed party. We're on the same page, even if I'm not explaining it particularly well.

Also, I was once embroiled in a court battle with Expedia and British Airways over changes to my flights that I'd booked with Expedia. Even though Expedia act as agents on BA's behalf, the court found that my contract was with Expedia and that they were liable.