Estate Agents Terms

OK course it is.

I would say that a sole agent agreement means just that - sole

*agent*. Since there is no other agent involved here I don't see how that agreement has been breached.

Chris

Your friend needs to look at what he signed and what it says.

I think you'll find you are wrong.

In message , Chris Blunt writes

I've never seen an estate agent agreement that interprets it the way you do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Usually 'sole agency' means 'sole right to sell'. He should check the words. If he doesn't like the words then its too late now.

In message , Phil writes

A sole agency agreement should say that remuneration will be due if unconditional contracts are exchanged during the period of agency with a purchaser introduced by the sole agent, (name here?), or by any other agent.

If the brother was not introduced by the agent, or another agent, then the fee is not due.

Your friend will have no control over whether the agent issues an invoice or not, nor whether they issue legal proceedings, and will have to defend them if they arise, but a judge should fall on your friends side.

A sole selling rights agreement is what the agent is purporting to have, if they are to be entitled to their fee when a purchaser was not introduced by themselves, or another agent..

This would say that remuneration would be due if unconditional contracts for the sale of the property are exchanged during the period in which we have Sole Selling Rights, even if the purchaser was not found by us but by another agent, or by any other person, including yourself.

Before marketing a property, the agent is legally obliged to put their terms in writing to the vendor, so your friend will have a copy of the terms, which will/should include one of the above terms.

Have you seen the agreement - it is possible that your friend may think he has a Sole Agency agreement, whereas it could actually be a Sole Selling Rights agreement.

In message , john boyle writes

No it doesnt The Estate Agents Act New Regulations 1991, (I think that is what it is called), recommend the wording to be used for various types of agency, and Sole Agency is differentiated from Sole Selling Rights,

see my reply to the OP.

In message , Richard Faulkner writes

Thanks for that!

Thanks for that I have looked at the agreement and have advised friend that he has signed a "Sole Selling Rights" agreement and it does say, as you have outlined, whoever buys that agent will still be entitled to the commission. I asked him why he signed it - his reply was the agent stood there and asked him to sign at the bottom.

He now accepts his stupidity for signing without reading. Is it worth him asking the agent for a reduction as it is a family member and not a stranger who has suddenly become a friend?

Phil

In message , Phil writes

Definitely - I use a Sole Selling Rights agreement but, if someone tells me that they are selling to a friend or family member, I usually offer a discount without being prompted, (either 25% or 50% depending on the circumstances), which has usually been agreed by a client.

I do this because it is clearly possible for the client to "withdraw" the property from the market, and then sell to the friend without my knowing.

It is then for me to establish that they have actually done this, which means monitoring the house for a period of months for signs of removals activity, establishing that completion has taken place to the friend, finding the new address of the seller, issuing an invoice and subsequent legal proceedings.

The above is not easy and can take a lot of time, so it is often worth taking the "hit" for a return up front.

Not all agents will do what I do, and I know that some of the larger chains will just pass the matter onto their big legal department, and chase it till the cows come home.

"Richard Faulkner" wrote

How long does a "Sole Selling Rights" agreement last for?

I mean, what if the vendor (really does) withdraws from sale, continues living there for (say) 10 years then sells via a different agent, or personally? Surely you wouldn't still have a right to a fee, 10 years later?

Assuming this to be true, where is the "cut-off" point - ie how long does the vendor need to wait, in order to be able to sell without paying the "Sole Selling Rights" agent the fee?

Thanks for the reply the agent has actually offered 50% off as it is relatively new and they haven't incurred a lot of costs. I suspect some agents, as you say, would chase the full amount.

Phil

Another possibility, presumably, is to withdraw the property, and wait until the period specified in the SSR agreement has elapsed, and *then* sell to the brother. What's the typical length of time covered by these deals? Surely just a matter of a few months, and the brother could either just wait, or move in on an interim rental basis.

As a matter of interest, Richard [I ask because I'm only familiar with the way things are done in Scotland where we don't really have estate agents as such - property marketing is virtually the exclusive province of solicitors who specialise in this], do English estate agents tend to carry out the conveyancing too, so that a vendor has no need to involve a solicitor as well? That would indicate that the estate agent's contribution is not restricted merely to marketing, and so there is justification for making some charge even if the eventual buyer was not introduced by the agent. The charge would cover the conveyancing effort, plus marketing effort to date -- after all, brochures will have been produced, advertising paid for, and perhaps some potential buyers will also have been shown round.

In message , Tim writes

My agreement is subject to termination by 14 days written notice by the vendor, but entitles me to a fee if contracts are exchanged with anyone introduced during the period of the agreement.

In message , Phil writes

Good result in the circumstances.

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

Exactly why I am always open to an offer if it genuinely seems to be a friend, or relative.

My agreement provides for a fee after the end of the agency period, if the property is sold to someone introduced during the period. This would cover the brother, assuming that I discovered the subsequent sale. The open ended nature means that it could ultimately be up to a judge to decide upon what a reasonable period is.

No, we dont tend to do conveyancing, although there are some solicitors property shops, which are possibly a bit like the Scottish version.

I have seen just such an agreement. If I found the buyer I paid nothing, if the agent found the buyer I paid.

What does the agreement actually say?

RObert

I have looked at the agreement based on which I raised the issue and it is clear.

There are three options, Sole Selling Rights (whoever buys from whatever source will result in commission owing to agents), Sole Agency (if another agency used during the sole period and they sell commission owing) and Multiple Agency (no restrictions - commission only payable if agent sells).

To be fair it is clearly worded and the commission options clearly stated.

Phil

"Richard Faulkner" wrote

So, if the OP's friend's agreement is similar, and assuming their brother has not been introduced to them by their estate agent(!), all they would need to do is give 14 days notice, then after the fortnight they can sell to their brother with no fee to the agent?

They wouldn't even have to pay the 50% being requested? :-)