Claimant estate agents ringing defendant about development site and suggesting finder’s fee — Defendant expressing interest — Site subsequently advertised — Defendant purchasing site — Claimants seeking payment of fee — Whether agreement concluded for payment of fee — Whether claimants making effective introduction to seller — Claim dismissed
The claimants were in partnership as estate agents. They became aware of a potential development site and subsequently cold-called a number of potential buyers, offering to assist in securing the site in return for a fee of 2% plus VAT. One such telephone call was to the defendant’s land manager, who expressed an interest. The claimants followed up the call with a letter, which referred back to the telephone conversation, reiterated the claimants’ terms and sought the defendant’s confirmation.
The site was subsequently made available on the open market and advertised for sale in Estates Gazette, whereupon the defendant purchased it. The claimants subsequently sought payment of their fee. The defendant denied having agreed to the fee, and maintained that it had purchased the site not as a result of anything done by the claimants, but directly as a result of seeing the advertisement.
The claimants brought proceedings to recover the fee, contending that a contract had been concluded during the telephone conversation. The defendant maintained that no agreement had been reached, and that it was not the practice of its land managers to agree a fee without first discussing the matter with their superiors.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
No agreement had been reached during the telephone conversation with the defendant’s land manager. The defendant’s evidence was to be preferred on that matter. Moreover, regardless of the terms of the telephone conversation, nothing then said had led to an effective introduction, as the defendant had purchased the site as a sole and direct result of reading the Estates Gazette advertisement. If and in so far as the site had been identified in the telephone conversation, that had in no way informed the defendant’s decision to make the purchase.
Mark Warwick (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell) appeared for the claimants; Michael Daiches (instructed by Matthew Arnold & Baldwin) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
