If I bypass the auctioneer

Freiheit

and approach the vendor directly,is the vendor legally obliged to pay the auctioneer in the event of making a sale?.

Danke
F

P. Breathnach

The relationship between auctioneer and client is no concern of a potential purchaser.

If I were selling a property, I would be wary of people trying to pull any kind of stroke, such as attempting to cut the auctioneer out. How could I be sure that I would not be the next target of sharp practice?

Dymo

If the auctioneer introduced the buyer to the seller they are entitled to their fee, Introduced could be a sale board outside a house, and ad on the internet or newspaper. If the auctioneer had any part of you knowing about the sale of the house and they purchasing it they are entitled to their fee.

M three

Dymo wrote: »

If the auctioneer introduced the buyer to the seller they are entitled to their fee, Introduced could be a sale board outside a house, and ad on the internet or newspaper. If the auctioneer had any part of you knowing about the sale of the house and they purchasing it they are entitled to their fee.

Is this a fact or just an opinion? Auctioneers sign are all over the place, one house often has signs from several auctioneers. Does that mean that each of them should get a fee when the house sells?

Just because an auctioneer has a sign outside a house they should not be entitled to anything if the seller and buyer meet via other ways.

There are way too many hangers on looking for their cut when it comes to buying a house, auctioneers, solicitors, engineers. all of them add to the cost and if something goes wrong they distance themselves fairly lively

Freiheit

A friend a decade ago advertised their home through an auctioneer,later organised a sale themselves,without the auctioneer. The Auctioneer threatened legal action but none happened. So wondering whether this is just custom or law.

Pablo Sanchez

M three wrote: »

Is this a fact or just an opinion? Auctioneers sign are all over the place, one house often has signs from several auctioneers. Does that mean that each of them should get a fee when the house sells?

Just because an auctioneer has a sign outside a house they should not be entitled to anything if the seller and buyer meet via other ways.

There are way too many hangers on looking for their cut when it comes to buying a house, auctioneers, solicitors, engineers. all of them add to the cost and if something goes wrong they distance themselves fairly lively

If a sale bypassed the auctioneer, they would be within their rights to bring the seller to court, if the house owner could prove that you did not see the house for sale on the internet, shop window display or for sale sign then the auctioneer does not have a case.

If your planning to buy then dont worry about the auctioneer, your not paying the fees!

M three

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

If a sale bypassed the auctioneer, they would be within their rights to bring the seller to court, if the house owner could prove that you did not see the house for sale on the internet, shop window display or for sale sign then the auctioneer does not have a case.

If your planning to buy then dont worry about the auctioneer, your not paying the fees!

But the buyer is of course paying the fees, if the seller wants to achieve, say, 200k form the sale of the house then they will look to sell for 205k for example, to cover the cost of the auctioneers fees.

Auctioneer doesnt even charge a set fee, they charge a bloody percentage of the sale price!

Could you provide link to the auctioneers "rights" you mention? Also a link to a case where an auctioneer did take a seller to court?
I think its more a case of what an auctioneer thinks they are entitled to, which would be SFA in a lot of cases.

Pablo Sanchez

M three wrote: »

But the buyer is of course paying the fees, if the seller wants to achieve, say, 200k form the sale of the house then they will look to sell for 205k for example, to cover the cost of the auctioneers fees.

Auctioneer doesnt even charge a set fee, they charge a bloody percentage of the sale price!

Could you provide link to the auctioneers "rights" you mention? Also a link to a case where an auctioneer did take a seller to court?
I think its more a case of what an auctioneer thinks they are entitled to, which would be SFA in a lot of cases.

Check out contract law.

P. Breathnach

M three wrote: »

But the buyer is of course paying the fees, if the seller wants to achieve, say, 200k form the sale of the house then they will look to sell for 205k for example, to cover the cost of the auctioneers fees.

That's nonsense: the buyer pays whatever he or she is willing to pay, and generally does not give a moment's thought to what the seller does with the money.

Could you provide link to the auctioneers "rights" you mention? Also a link to a case where an auctioneer did take a seller to court?

There is a large body of law relating to contract. Do you really expect people to conduct such an amount of research for you?

I think its more a case of what an auctioneer thinks they are entitled to, which would be SFA in a lot of cases.

Can you cite an authority which supports your suggestion that auctioneers have no entitlement to their fee? Or are you simply making things up?

M three

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

Check out contract law.

Sounds vague! How would a contract have been entered into if the buyer never discussed a sale, or completed the sale with the auctioneer?

Its like saying theres a small garage who could sell you a car (that they have to order from a main dealer), but instead of going near them you buy that car directly from the main dealer.

Imagine the small garage trying to cite contract law and trying to sue you!
Load of cobblers, like i said, its more a case of what the auctioneer thinks they are entitled to than anything.

Pablo Sanchez

And i might just add, as a former Auctioneer i can confirm that the type of person who aproaches vendors directly when they have clearly employed the service of an agent, are by and large the biggest time wasters going, they promise the earth and may not even have finance in place, its the agents responsability to weed these people out and to advise the vendors correctly.

Pablo Sanchez

M three wrote: »

Sounds vague! How would a contract have been entered into if the buyer never discussed a sale, or completed the sale with the auctioneer?

Its like saying theres a small garage who could sell you a car (that they have to order from a main dealer), but instead of going near them you buy that car directly from the main dealer.

Imagine the small garage trying to cite contract law and trying to sue you!
Load of cobblers, like i said, its more a case of what the auctioneer thinks they are entitled to than anything.

It might be more clear to you if you ever signed an agency agreement with an estate agent. You agree the fees and terms of sale in advance. Did you think that the whole industry runs purly on trust? Back in the 'good old days' agents were not paying 20k per page of advertisment on a wink and a nod.

M three

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's nonsense: the buyer pays whatever he or she is willing to pay, and generally does not give a moment's thought to what the seller does with the money.



There is a large body of law relating to contract. Do you really expect people to conduct such an amount of research for you?



Can you cite an authority which supports your suggestion that auctioneers have no entitlement to their fee? Or are you simply making things up?

Well they should consider the fee more, given its a percentage of the sale price.

And where does a contract even exist? In the OP a seller has a house, it may be advertised by an auctioneer, but the seller decides to sell directly to a buyer who approaches them independant of the auctioneer.

How in that case does the auctioneer have any entitlement to a fee? There is no contract there anywhere.

Pablo Sanchez

M three wrote: »

Well they should consider the fee more, given its a percentage of the sale price.

And where does a contract even exist? In the OP a seller has a house, it may be advertised by an auctioneer, but the seller decides to sell directly to a buyer who approaches them independant of the auctioneer.

How in that case does the auctioneer have any entitlement to a fee? There is no contract there anywhere.

Firstly a agency agreement is a contract.

Agency fees at around 1% is miniscule compared to most western countries, it would not be unusual to pay 7-10% in spain or the USA. Actually in the USA the buyer also pays the selling agent a fee.

Did you sign a contract with your Doctor? No of course not, but have you ever left his office claiming your not paying cause you dont accept his advice?

M three

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

It might be more clear to you if you ever signed an agency agreement with an estate agent. You agree the fees and terms of sale in advance. Did you think that the whole industry runs purly on trust? Back in the 'good old days' agents were not paying 20k per page of advertisment on a wink and a nod.

So now its an "agency agreement" and not contract law? Were you an auctioneer in Ireland?

Pablo Sanchez

M three wrote: »

So now its an "agency agreement" and not contract law? Were you an auctioneer in Ireland?

Excuse me, at the risk of confusing you further, a seller signs an agency agreement. This agreement is a contract and is thus governened by contract law.

P. Breathnach

M three wrote: »

... There is no contract there anywhere.

You are making it clear that you do not know the basics of contract law. It is a disservice to others who read this forum to post uninformed views in this way.

M three

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

Excuse me, at the risk of confusing you further, a seller signs an agency agreement. This agreement is a contract and is thus governened by contract law.

Fear not Pablo, just for your benefit "responsability" is responsibility, "purly" is purely and its "you're" not "your".
The only person confused here is you.

If you were an auctioneer in Ireland its a pity you can't spell "responsibility", says it all really.

M three

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are making it clear that you do not know the basics of contract law. It is a disservice to others who read this forum to post uninformed views in this way.

Again, In the OP a seller has a house, that is advertised by an auctioneer, but the seller decides to sell directly to a buyer who approaches them independant of the auctioneer.

Lets say they end up selling direct to a family member.

Are you really saying the auctioneer has an entitlement to a fee here??

Pablo Sanchez

M three wrote: »

Fear not Pablo, just for your benefit "responsability" is responsibility, "purly" is purely and its "you're" not "your".
The only person confused here is you.

If you were an auctioneer in Ireland its a pity you can't spell "responsibility", says it all really.

You do make a very valid point, if the only basis to further your argument is to criticise spelling then its fair to say you have done well.

Il ensure to employ your advice the next time i seek clarification on the basics of being wrong on everything else.

M three

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

You do make a very valid point, if the only basis to further your argument is to criticise spelling then its fair to say you have done well.

Il ensure to employ your advice the next time i seek clarification on the basics of being wrong on everything else.

No need to come to me at all, just buy a dictionary.

Pablo Sanchez

[Embedded Image Removed]

borderlinemeath

M three wrote: »

Again, In the OP a seller has a house, that is advertised by an auctioneer, but the seller decides to sell directly to a buyer who approaches them independant of the auctioneer.

Lets say they end up selling direct to a family member.

Are you really saying the auctioneer has an entitlement to a fee here??

It's not just ex EAs that have trouble with the spelling..

M three

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It's not just ex EAs that have trouble with the spelling..

Yes, but I'm not an ex auctioneer pontificating about contract law, auctioneer agreements, "responsability" and generally talking down to people by saying that they're confused. Am I borderline?

borderlinemeath

M three wrote: »

Yes, but I'm not an ex auctioneer pontificating about contract law, auctioneer agreements, "responsability" and generally talking down to people by saying that that they're confused. Am I borderline?

No but you're patronising as hell telling him to buy a dictionary when you could do with it yourself.

dudara

@M three- Please do not attack the spelling of other posters - it doesn't help your argument, but instead diminishes it. Additionally, it's just downright rude.

As you're a relatively new poster on Boards, please take the time to read the forum charters, and familiarise yourself with what is considered acceptable behaviour.

Thread moved to the Accomodation & Property forum, as I believe that to be a better place to get some answers.

dudara

M three

borderlinemeath wrote: »

No but you're patronising as hell telling him to buy a dictionary when you could do with it yourself.

Hahaha!

But seriously, if someone is selling a house, and asks an auctioneer to advertise it, but the seller decides to sell directly to a buyer without the involvement of the auctioneer. Is the auctioneer entitled to any fee here?

Lets say for example they end up selling direct to a family member.

Freiheit

Thanks to all for your contributions so far.

However I do take exception to this comment by Pablo Sanchez ***I can confirm that the type of person who aproaches vendors directly when they have clearly employed the service of an agent, are by and large the biggest time wasters going, they promise the earth and may not even have finance in place*** I am not this type of person,nor was a friend who followed this route in purchase,and certainly wasn't the experience of a friend who sold through this route (the guy who was threatened by the auctioneer who eventually never acted).

As someone mentioned earlier a vendor will have a figure in mind -net-. If there was no auctioneer's fees to slice away at the cake,I may be able to give a little more directly to the vendor.

I want to establish the law.

M three

Freiheit wrote: »

Thanks to all for your contributions so far.

However I do take exception to this comment by Pablo Sanchez ***I can confirm that the type of person who aproaches vendors directly when they have clearly employed the service of an agent, are by and large the biggest time wasters going, they promise the earth and may not even have finance in place*** I am not this type of person,nor was a friend who followed this route in purchase,and certainly wasn't the experience of a friend who sold through this route (the guy who was threatened by the auctioneer who eventually never acted).

As someone mentioned earlier a vendor will have a figure in mind -net-. If there was no auctioneer's fees to slice away at the cake,I may be able to give a little more directly to the vendor.

I want to establish the law.

Bear in mind it was an ex auctioneer who said people who approach sellers outside of an auctioneer are time wasters, I wouldnt worry about that comment.

kneeler

[1943] 77 I.L.T.R 18
Cusack v Bothwell
Court: Circuit Court.
Judge(s): Judge Sheehy
Date: Cavan, 4th and 11th November, 1942
([1943] 77 I.L.T.R 18)

Auctioneer—Agent to sell land—Commission—Refusal of Vendor to complete sale.

An auctioneer who was employed as an agent to procure a purchaser for, and to sell land at, a fixed price on the terms that the purchaser was to pay 5 per cent. commission, did all that was laid upon him to do, but the Vendor refused to complete the sale.

Held : That the auctioneer was entitled to recover remuneration for his services from the Vendor, and that such remuneration should be fixed at 5 per cent.

kneeler

AUCTIONEERS AND ESTATE AGENTS.

Remuneration

Estate agent - Claim against both vendor and purchaser - Implied contract - Reasonable remuneration.

The appellant claimed against the respondents, purchaser and vendor respectively of a farm, that, while acting as estate agent on the instructions of each of the respondents he effected an introduction between them so as to bring about a sale and claimed his estate agent's commission or, reasonable remuneration. The Judge found that the appellant had not been instructed by the vendor to find a purchaser for her farm. He also found that he had been instructed by the purchaser to find a suitable farm for him and that he had effected an introduction to the vendor. Held , 1, for an estate agent to claim remuneration he must establish that a contract exists between him and the person from whom he claims requiring the estate agent to perform certain work to effect the purchase or sale of a piece of property; 2, the estate agent must in fact perform this work and must effect the introduction between the parties to the sale; 3, in the absence of express terms providing for a specific commission, the estate agent is entitled to reasonable remuneration for work performed.

Henehan v. Courtney and Another

M three

kneeler wrote: »

[1943] 77 I.L.T.R 18
Cusack v Bothwell
Court: Circuit Court.
Judge(s): Judge Sheehy
Date: Cavan, 4th and 11th November, 1942
([1943] 77 I.L.T.R 18)

Auctioneer—Agent to sell land—Commission—Refusal of Vendor to complete sale.

An auctioneer who was employed as an agent to procure a purchaser for, and to sell land at, a fixed price on the terms that the purchaser was to pay 5 per cent. commission, did all that was laid upon him to do, but the Vendor refused to complete the sale.

Held : That the auctioneer was entitled to recover remuneration for his services from the Vendor, and that such remuneration should be fixed at 5 per cent.

Thanks Kneeler, was the case in 1942 or is that piece of law from 1942?

kneeler

Those are the dates the case was heard. The judgement refers to other older cases.

Freiheit

So it appears then that auctioneers are entitled to their fee? but some obviously don't pursue it,probably due to the cost and possible damage to their reputation?.

M three

dudara wrote: »

@M three- Please do not attack the spelling of other posters - it doesn't help your argument, but instead diminishes it. Additionally, it's just downright rude.

As you're a relatively new poster on Boards, please take the time to read the forum charters, and familiarise yourself with what is considered acceptable behaviour.

Thread moved to the Accomodation & Property forum, as I believe that to be a better place to get some answers.

dudara

Ok, noted. but unfair to single me out for pointing out mis spelling when I was on the end of same. Also I did so after being on the end of this type of sarcasm:
"Excuse me, at the risk of confusing you further.."
"You are making it clear that you do not know the basics..."
Why am I being singled out?

M three

Freiheit wrote: »

So it appears then that auctioneers are entitled to their fee? but some obviously don't pursue it,probably due to the cost and possible damage to their reputation?.

Hard to know, going by the detail Kneeler posted its seems that if you hire an auctioneer and they introduce you to the buyer, and the purchase concluded the auctioneer is entitled to their fee. Which is correct.

If an auctioneer advertises your property but you conclude the sale with someone that has nothing to do with the auctioneer and not introduced by the auctioneer then the auctioneer shouldnt be entitled to anything.

johndaman66

kneeler wrote: »

[1943] 77 I.L.T.R 18
Cusack v Bothwell
Court: Circuit Court.
Judge(s): Judge Sheehy
Date: Cavan, 4th and 11th November, 1942
([1943] 77 I.L.T.R 18)

Auctioneer—Agent to sell land—Commission—Refusal of Vendor to complete sale.

An auctioneer who was employed as an agent to procure a purchaser for, and to sell land at, a fixed price on the terms that the purchaser was to pay 5 per cent. commission, did all that was laid upon him to do, but the Vendor refused to complete the sale.

Held : That the auctioneer was entitled to recover remuneration for his services from the Vendor, and that such remuneration should be fixed at 5 per cent.

I'm not proclaiming to be an expert, far from it in fact but on the face of it I'd be a wee bit weary of the relevance of a piece of case law from 1943 in answering the OP's question. I would hazard a guess that in general the same property was not carried by mulitple agents back in 1942 and the vendor did not pay advertising fees upfront to the agent back then (as would seem to me to be the general practice these times from what I hear)...I am open to correction on either of them points though.

As such and among other reasons I would be inclined to question the direct relevance of the piece of case law you cite kneeler. Dont take me up wrong, not absolutely suggesting its irrelevant or attempting to belittle you in any manner, just questioning its relevance in todays world if you will?;)

Milk & Honey

johndaman66 wrote: »

I'm not proclaiming to be an expert, far from it in fact but on the face of it I'd be a wee bit weary of the relevance of a piece of case law from 1943 in answering the OP's question. I would hazard a guess that in general the same property was not carried by mulitple agents back in 1942 and the vendor did not pay advertising fees upfront to the agent back then (as would seem to me to be the general practice these times from what I hear)...I am open to correction on either of them points though.

What difference can it possibly make if a property is carried by multiple agents or advertising is paid up front?

johndaman66

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What difference can it possibly make if a property is carried by multiple agents or advertising is paid up front?

On the basis that you only pay one Agent the commission for selling your property, would all or indeed any of the Agents be able to pursue you, if you had your property on their books and ultimately bypassed them all and the vendor closed the sale by himself.

In a case with multiple agents the vendor does not pay the commission to the Agents that don't sell the property, rather the agent that does (and as far as I know this Agent then usually gives the other guys a cut). But on the basis that the property is ultimately not sold by the remaining agents even though the vendor contracted them to do so could these guys pursue the vendor for the full commission? That was the angle I was coming from.

I do often wonder in cases where an Agent is paid an upfront fee for advertising a property and lets put asking price aside for the moment does a very poor job at attempting to sell it....I'm sure weve nearly all seen the sloppy photos or lack of them on Daft, backing out of appointments to show buyers houses at the last minute, bringing along the wrong keys, not returning phone calls or emails etc...and believe me I can tell you first hand about all this kind of carry on. I know if I was selling a house through such a lapse Agent and I ultimately sold it myself he wouldn't be getting a red cent from me.

Edit: If advertising fees are paid upfront and the Estate Agent does a lousy job in selling the house (or not selling it as the case would be) for reasons such as those afore mentioned should the Agent be paid a commission where the vendor goes on to sell the house by themselves? I know I wouldn't be too keen on handing my hardearned over to them anyway. Lets face it they probably would have being remunerated already for whatever little work they did do once they received their advertising fee.

odds_on

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

And i might just add, as a former Auctioneer i can confirm that the type of person who aproaches vendors directly when they have clearly employed the service of an agent, are by and large the biggest time wasters going, they promise the earth and may not even have finance in place, its the agents responsability to weed these people out and to advise the vendors correctly.

The estate agents seem to be weeding a lot of people out - they don't reply to e-mails sent via Daft. I sent six about 3 weeks ago and got one reply. I have a copy of the e-mails and these estate agents won't be getting my custom. There are plenty of properties for sale so I am have an abundance of choice - anywhere in the Republic. And I'm a cash buyer!!

Pablo Sanchez

odds_on wrote: »

The estate agents seem to be weeding a lot of people out - they don't reply to e-mails sent via Daft. I sent six about 3 weeks ago and got one reply. I have a copy of the e-mails and these estate agents won't be getting my custom. There are plenty of properties for sale so I am have an abundance of choice - anywhere in the Republic. And I'm a cash buyer!!

They should be weeding out the timewasters and showing someone like yourself the red carpet these days, there is no excuse for not returning calls etc.

Kosseegan

johndaman66 wrote: »

On the basis that you only pay one Agent the commission for selling your property, would all or indeed any of the Agents be able to pursue you, if you had your property on their books and ultimately bypassed them all and the vendor closed the sale by himself.

In a case with multiple agents the vendor does not pay the commission to the Agents that don't sell the property, rather the agent that does (and as far as I know this Agent then usually gives the other guys a cut). But on the basis that the property is ultimately not sold by the remaining agents even though the vendor contracted them to do so could these guys pursue the vendor for the full commission? That was the angle I was coming from.

I do often wonder in cases where an Agent is paid an upfront fee for advertising a property and lets put asking price aside for the moment does a very poor job at attempting to sell it....I'm sure weve nearly all seen the sloppy photos or lack of them on Daft, backing out of appointments to show buyers houses at the last minute, bringing along the wrong keys, not returning phone calls or emails etc...and believe me I can tell you first hand about all this kind of carry on. I know if I was selling a house through such a lapse Agent and I ultimately sold it myself he wouldn't be getting a red cent from me.

Edit: If advertising fees are paid upfront and the Estate Agent does a lousy job in selling the house (or not selling it as the case would be) for reasons such as those afore mentioned should the Agent be paid a commission where the vendor goes on to sell the house by themselves? I know I wouldn't be too keen on handing my hardearned over to them anyway.

Lets face it they probably would have being remunerated already for whatever little work they did do once they received their advertising fee.

Multiple agency is quite rare in residential sales. Joint agencey happens from time to time but is not common. When either of these events occur there is an agreement made between the owner and the agents about the entitlement to commission and the basis it is to be earned and shared out.
Advertising money is for outlay, not for payment.
The agents earns his fee by introducing a ready able and willing buyer at a price previously agreed with the owner. If the owner sources the buyer himself, unless there is a sole right to sell previously agreed, the agent gets no commission.
Your rant about agents not doing a good job is irrelevant to this discussion. If the agent introduces a buyer and you deal with that buyer and a binding contract is signed, you would inevitably lose a court case brought by the agent for his fee. If you are not happy with an agent, fire him/her. Then go find your own buyer.
The o/p's query seems to be on the lines of approaching the owner of a house he finds is on the market and offering a deal whereby the agent is bypassed, and the owner is persuaded to reduce the price on the basis no fee would be payable to the agent. Most agents wuill sue and will succeed if that happens.

johndaman66

Kosseegan wrote: »

Multiple agency is quite rare in residential sales. Joint agencey happens from time to time but is not common. When either of these events occur there is an agreement made between the owner and the agents about the entitlement to commission and the basis it is to be earned and shared out.

Are you sure about that one Kosseegan? If you go on daft you will very many residential properties being carried by multiple agents. In fact based on the broad search I often run I would suggest at least the half of residential properties for sale at any one time are on the books of more than one agent.

Kosseegan wrote: »

The agents earns his fee by introducing a ready able and willing buyer at a price previously agreed with the owner. If the owner sources the buyer himself, unless there is a sole right to sell previously agreed, the agent gets no commission.
Your rant about agents not doing a good job is irrelevant to this discussion. If the agent introduces a buyer and you deal with that buyer and a binding contract is signed, you would inevitably lose a court case brought by the agent for his fee. If you are not happy with an agent, fire him/her. Then go find your own buyer.
The o/p's query seems to be on the lines of approaching the owner of a house he finds is on the market and offering a deal whereby the agent is bypassed, and the owner is persuaded to reduce the price on the basis no fee would be payable to the agent. Most agents wuill sue and will succeed if that happens.

Fair points. If the Agent does introduce a buyer and the vendor proceeds to complete a sale with that buyer then that Agent would be very much entitled to their commission, no doubt about it.

I was approaching the argument from the point of view that the Agent proves themselves to be incompetent or downright lazy in selling the property....If a buyer and seller were to be introdouced not through the Agent but by other means then in my mind there is a pretty convincing argument that the Agent is not entitled to demand any commission. If I was a vendor in such a position the Agent would most definately need to take me to court before he would see anymore of my hard earned.

I do agree with you on firing the agnet if you are not happy with him/ her. It is without doubt the most logical thing to do in such a situation

Kosseegan

johndaman66 wrote: »

Are you sure about that one Kosseegan? If you go on daft you will very many residential properties being carried by multiple agents. In fact based on the broad search I often run I would suggest at least the half of residential properties for sale at any one time are on the books of more than one agent.

I have never come across a property on the market through more than two agents. Any joint sales are usually in country areas where it might take years for a buyer to emerge.

johndaman66

Kosseegan wrote: »

I have never come across a property on the market through more than two agents. Any joint sales are usually in country areas where it might take years for a buyer to emerge.

Hmm, I can say I've seen a fair few. I would have assumed that even two agents also constitute multiple agents....

Kosseegan

johndaman66 wrote: »

Hmm, I can say I've seen a fair few. I would have assumed that even two agents also constitute multiple agents....

Two agents would constitute a joint agency. In the UK there can be many more involved sometimes six or seven. That is multiple agents. In any case it is irrelevant to the original query.
Introduction of buyer means fee whatever number of agents are involved or however it is apportioned between them. No introduction means no fee unless a very exceptional arrangement was entered into, such as a sole right to sell.

Pablo Sanchez

I think Joint agencies are traditionally used in the countryside where you would instruct a local agent and maybe a larger 'town' agent as well to give it more reach. Not very commen in Dublin residential sales except sometimes for new developments.

Chipboard

We bought our first house in 2003 directly from the vendor. It was with an agent but he was telling me lies and he wasn't communicating with her at all. I knocked on her door one evening and offered her the asking price and we did a deal. As such I would say that we definitely aren't the kind of people who would waste a vendors time. She was damn glad to sell and move on with her life.

She would have signed an agency fee with him to sell the house and he could have used this to pursue her but I think he would have had a hard time convincing a judge as the court is entitled to take his behaviour into account.

That was in different times though. These days I don't think too many auctioneers would have the cheek to claim fees for a sale they didn't win. I know developments which are listed by up to 8 auctioneers and its a case of the one who gets the sale gets the commission.

If a vendor has it with an auctioneer and they decide they want to sell direct they could just tell the auctioneer they aren't happy, pay him for the marketing, send him packing and do the deal afterwards.

I predicted a few years ago that mortgage brokers would get pushed out of the market cos they weren't adding any value, and I believe that alot (not all) of auctioneers will get pushed out also. Most of them are useless. Their listings on Daft are unhelpful, full of errors, insufficient detail, sh1te photographs, difficult to get in contact with, won't return calls and inflexible on viewings. To top it off you can't believe a word they say. I had one recently who swore to me that a A BER rating was genuine so I asked for the BER cert. He rang me back a few days later to say the BER hadn't been done. What an A-hole.

The_Conductor

Word of warning to posters.

Keep on topic- any more offtopic posts concerning people's spelling abilities and/or the state of their mental health- will result in a summary ban from this forum. If you disagree with what someone posts- refute it factually, without attacking the other poster.

Regards,

SMcCarrick