EA introduced buyer

tradesman

Estate agent recently introduced a buyer for a property. Buyers signed contract to buy but the vendor had not signed. An issue arose with contents etc being sold with the property & because of these problems the Estate Agent told the vendor he has washed his hands of the sale & was returning the deposit to the buyer! EA said he did not want any more to do with the property. A relation of the vendors then stepped in and bought the property instead. Is the vendor liable to pay the Estate Agent any fees?

whippet

What do the signed contracts say between vendor and EA .... in all reality anything else is conjecture and if it went legal signed paperwork would have the answer

tradesman

unfortunately no access to the contract

handlemaster

tradesman wrote: »

unfortunately no access to the contract

Why ask if your not involved. .

Marcusm

whippet wrote: »

What do the signed contracts say between vendor and EA .... in all reality anything else is conjecture and if it went legal signed paperwork would have the answer

All of this is true although it would be interesting to establish whether by his actions an estate agent in such a circumstance could be regarded as having rescinded the contract such that its terms were not particularly relevant. More one for Legal Discussion.

tradesman

handlemaster wrote: »

Why ask if your not involved. .

I am involved. I just cant get access to the contract at this time. I just wondered seeing as the EA "washed his hands of the whole thing" whether he would be able to make a claim for payment. He did introduce a buyer who signed a contract but he never carried it through to the end. I don't see why he should be paid a commission.

tradesman

Marcusm wrote: »

All of this is true although it would be interesting to establish whether by his actions an estate agent in such a circumstance could be regarded as having rescinded the contract such that its terms were not particularly relevant. More one for Legal Discussion.

That was my thoughts. Yes, whatever is agreed on a contract should stand. But the EA broke the contract so should he be paid? I don't think so.

evolving_doors

Just to clarify... the relation who stepped in... how did they purchase the property?
Through the same EA?
Private agreement with the seller?

I don't know jack about much, but I would imagine that the relationship between the two purchasers is inconsequential.
Unless maybe the EA had some type of exclusivity period with the seller.

davo10

EA introduced buyer, contracts were issued by the seller and signed by the buyer. Ea possibly feels that as contracts were signed by buyer, the owner backed out of the agreed sale (as is his/her right). EA did his part of the bargain but owner possibly frustrated the sale with a view to selling to a relative.

It's possible the EA believes he was mislead by the owner and having found a buyer who signed contracts the first time, did not want to go through it again.

tradesman

It was a private agreement between the 2 relations. I must stress that this ONLY happened after the EA "Washed his hands of the whole thing"

4ensic15

The EA is entitled to a fee if he introduces a ready able and willing buyer. It is not clear from the earlier posts if this is the case here.

kala85

4ensic15 wrote: »

The EA is entitled to a fee if he introduces a ready able and willing buyer. It is not clear from the earlier posts if this is the case here.

How much of a fee should he get in this case.

What would he get in a standard sale.

davo10

tradesman wrote: »

It was a private agreement between the 2 relations. I must stress that this ONLY happened after the EA "Washed his hands of the whole thing"

The EA would appear to have "washed his hands" of the whole thing after introducing the buyer, after contracts had been issued, after contracts had been signed by the buyer. He did everything he agreed to do, the owner pulled out of the sale after contract was signed by buyer. EA has done his job, he didn't want to do it a second time, that's fair enough if the owner is unreliable.

Tradesman, do you like doing a job a second time just because the home owner has a change of mind? Do you charge for variations? Effectively the EA refused to do the job a second time, having done it correctly the first time.

myshirt

The EA is absolutely entitled to a fee here. In the absence of the agreement of a fee, typically looking at 1.5% of the OMV, or €2k, whichever is higher. Vat on top of that there aswell.

The vendor frustrated the sale, and it makes even more of a slam dunk case that it was a related party from a tax perspective. If I was the vendor here I would pay up quite swiftly. €2k+vat could easily turn into €6k. If I was the estate agent and the vendor tried to argue it out, they'd get one chance and that would be it. Not a nice thing to do when vendor really should be paying 2k-ish, but if it has to be done it has to be done.

ted1

tradesman wrote: »

It was a private agreement between the 2 relations. I must stress that this ONLY happened after the EA "Washed his hands of the whole thing"

Was the intention to determine a market price and then sell to the relative?

The EA fulfilled his part and got a buyer to sale agreed

myshirt

tradesman wrote: »

It was a private agreement between the 2 relations. I must stress that this ONLY happened after the EA "Washed his hands of the whole thing"

Anytime I read something like this I absolutely facepalm. Go tell this to a judge and see how you get on.

If I give you a pro tip, one thing that will really, really wind up a legal professional is a google-merchant or kerbside lawyer who stands tall and assertive on a baseless pub talk argument.

If this came into a law office they'd give it to one of the trainees because the qualified solicitors wouldn't waste their time on it. The EA is due the fee and the more the vendor Google's he just Google's his way into racking up more expense and fees to be taken off him in the absence of not paying.

tradesman

davo10 wrote: »

The EA would appear to have "washed his hands" of the whole thing after introducing the buyer, after contracts had been issued, after contracts had been signed by the buyer. He did everything he agreed to do, the owner pulled out of the sale after contract was signed by buyer. EA has done his job, he didn't want to do it a second time, that's fair enough if the owner is unreliable.

Tradesman, do you like doing a job a second time just because the home owner has a change of mind? Do you charge for variations? Effectively the EA refused to do the job a second time, having done it correctly the first time.

It was the EA who called the whole thing off & said he was giving back the deposit to the buyer so he effectively cancelled his contract with the seller. The buyer only stepped in after this had happened. No one asked him / persuaded him / coaxed him to do this. He done it himself

tradesman

ted1 wrote: »

Was the intention to determine a market price and then sell to the relative?

The EA fulfilled his part and got a buyer to sale agreed

Definitely not. Relative ONLY stepped in when the EA called the sale off.

Del2005

tradesman wrote: »

Definitely not. Relative ONLY stepped in when the EA called the sale off.

The EA had a sale which the vendor pulled out of. Doesn't really matter as until you see the contract it's all speculation

tradesman

Del2005 wrote: »

The EA had a sale which the vendor pulled out of. Doesn't really matter as until you see the contract it's all speculation

Agreed re: contract. But the EA pulled out first so effectively IMO cancelling the contract leaving the vendor to find another buyer. It's definitely a sticky situation & perhaps not worth fighting over but to come to an agreement where EA takes a lesser fee than originally agreed. That would be my thinking

athtrasna

Legal advice may be prudent.

bleary

Look it, there is no way that the ea would hand back a deposit and pull out unless the vendor was being entirely unreasonable. This didn't happen over a minor disagreement out of the blue but over a total impasse.
The estate agent introduced a buyer ,fees are owed . The vendor already lost one buyer over stubbornness , they are probably willing to lose a bit more over this. Depends whether the ea is willing to waste more time over them. They may pay fee,reduced fee legal fees or nothing but the fees are owed and stand

davo10

tradesman wrote: »

It was the EA who called the whole thing off & said he was giving back the deposit to the buyer so he effectively cancelled his contract with the seller. The buyer only stepped in after this had happened. No one asked him / persuaded him / coaxed him to do this. He done it himself

Ah here, the EA does not have the authority to cancel the sale and give back the deposit, he is not a party to the sale contract, that is between the buyer and the seller.

The sellers solicitor would have something to say if the EA handed back the money and "cancelled" the contract after it hand been signed.

tradesman

davo10 wrote: »

Ah here, the EA does not have the authority to cancel the sale and give back the deposit, he is not a party to the sale contract, that is between the buyer and the seller.

The sellers solicitor would have something to say if the EA handed back the money and "cancelled" the contract after it hand been signed.

The buyers signed a contract to buy the house. The seller did not sign anything so legally speaking there was no contract in place. The buyers showed their intention to purchase but the sale did not materialise

davo10

tradesman wrote: »

The buyers signed a contract to buy the house. The seller did not sign anything so legally speaking there was no contract in place. The buyers showed their intention to purchase but the sale did not materialise

The EA cannot cancel the contract of sale, only the seller can do that after the buyer has signed the contract.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

The EA cannot cancel the contract of sale, only the seller can do that after the buyer has signed the contract.

The buyer can withdraw before the seller signs. The whole agreement is subject to contract. It seems like some further negotiations took place after the buyer signed and then there was a breakdown. The issue is whether the seller caused it.

Browney7

I'm interested in this:
"An issue arose with contents etc being sold with the property"

Reading between the lines, Was a sale agreed and then the vendor wanted extra cash as a sweetener on top of price and estate agent didn't want to get involved in this arrangement.

Peregrinus

OP, I think you should to tell us, as honestly and clearly as you can, what the estate agent would say if asked why he withdrew his services. Do not omit any fact that might explain or support the EA's decision, or that the EA might think would explain or support his decision.

In a case like this, there's absolutely no point in massaging the way you present the story in order to get people to express the view you want them to express.

Having introduced a willing buyer, the EA would ordinarily be entitled to his fee. Something extraordinary must have happened in order to persuade the EA to withdraw at that point, and so jeopardise the possiblity of receiving the fee which he had earned. You don't say what that extraordinary thing was. "Dispute over inclusion of contents" isn't enough. A bit of back-and-forth over the contents is common enough, and is normally resolved without difficulty. So, what was it?

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The buyer can withdraw before the seller signs. The whole agreement is subject to contract. It seems like some further negotiations took place after the buyer signed and then there was a breakdown. The issue is whether the seller caused it.

Eh, are you sure about that?

The contract of sale is the offer from the vendor, the buyer considers it and accepts when he/she signs the contract. The intention to enter legal relations is satisfied by the offer and acceptance.

I'm not a lawyer, but this has come up before in this forum.

Peregrinus

Both parties have to sign it. You can't enforce a contract for the sale of land against a party who hasn't signed it. If the buyer doesn't have a copy of the contract signed by the seller then he can't compel the seller to sell (and vice versa).

jimmycrackcorm

Peregrinus wrote:

Both parties have to sign it. You can't enforce a contract for the sale of land against a party who hasn't signed it. If the buyer doesn't have a copy of the contract signed by the seller then he can't compel the seller to sell (and vice versa).

What's relevant here is the contract between the vendor and the EA for the services of the EA. Then whether the EA broke that contract or was frustrated by the vendor.

Peregrinus

Rereading the thread, both 4ensic15 and Davos are clearly talking about the contract for the sale of the property, not the contract for the EA's services. The question raised by 4ensic15 in post 26 is whether the intending purchaser, after signing the contract, is still free to back out before the vendor has signed the contract.

davo10

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rereading the thread, both 4ensic15 and Davos are clearly talking about the contract for the sale of the property, not the contract for the EA's services. The question raised by 4ensic15 in post 26 is whether the intending purchaser, after signing the contract, is still free to back out before the vendor has signed the contract.

Actually you are half right, I'm talking about both in the context of this thread. The op seems to say that EA cancelled the sale contract, I don't see how the EA could do this.

Also, the buyer signed the contract so it's fair to presume that it was the seller who pulled the plug, thus probably driving the EA and the buyer mad. I'm not sure why 4ensic15 posted that the buyer could also pull the plug, technically he is right but if the buyer had in this case, wouldn't the op have said the buyer pulled out and the EA wouldn't have lost the plot?

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Eh, are you sure about that?

The contract of sale is the offer from the vendor, the buyer considers it and accepts when he/she signs the contract. The intention to enter legal relations is satisfied by the offer and acceptance.

I'm not a lawyer, but this has come up before in this forum.

The contract for sale is an invitation to treat from the vendor. When it is signed and returned by the buyer there is an offer. EAs are obliged to accept booking deposits subject to contract so there is no question of a concluded contract until both parties have signed.

As for the contract between the seller and the EA it would be most unusual if the seller could just walk away after the EA had produced a ready, willing and able buyer.

athtrasna

Mod note

This thread has strayed too far into legal discussion and legal advice to remain open. OP the contract is the first port of call, and this may necessitate a call to a solicitor depending on the complexity.