Plaintiff property manager introducing party already determined to buy – Buyer’s decision based on particulars furnished and earlier visit arranged by dealer contemplating purchase and immediate re-sale – Defendants agreeing to pay commission to plaintiff if sale to “your client” agreed by end of week – Condition fulfilled – Whether introduction an effective cause of sale – Whether such requirement applicable – Judge rejecting plaintiff’s claim – Plaintiff’s appeal allowed
The plaintiff was at all material times a self-employed property consultant and manager engaged by the defendants to manage their property in Penywern Road, Earls Court, London. In early March 1994 the defendants informed among others the plaintiff and a property dealer, L, that they intended to sell the property and, without appointing them agents as such, invited offers at or near £750,000. On April 19 1994 L passed the relevant details to SAR Properties Ltd (SAR), which expressed keen interest and accompanied L on a visit to the property on the following day. L gave SAR to understand that he himself had a right to buy from an undisclosed seller for £750,000 and proposed that for the sum of £25, 000 he would arrange for SAR to be substituted as buyer. Anxious to deal directly with the seller and having made inquiries, SAR made an appointment to meet the plaintiff at the property on April 21. At that meeting SAR, who said nothing about the previous visit, learned that the property was for sale on the open market for £750, 000. At the close of the meeting SAR passed the name of its solicitors to the plaintiff who, without identifying the defendants, passed the name of the defendants’ solicitors to SAR. On the same day the plaintiff, having telephoned the defendants, received from them a faxed letter confirming that they would pay him a commission of 2% in case of sale of the property to “your clients” before the end of the week. On the next day contracts were exchanged for the sale of the property by the defendants to SAR for £750,000. In subsequent county court proceedings the plaintiff’s claim for £15,000 was rejected on the ground that, on the special facts of the case, the introduction effected by the plaintiff was not the effective cause of the sale. The plaintiff appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The defence relied on the commonly implied term (see Bowstead on Agency 16th ed p298) precluding commission unless the agent’s services were the effective cause of the transaction. However, even if that term applied, the judge was wrong to see the case as one where the same buyer had been introduced by two estate agents, since L was at no time acting as such. On the very specific terms of his engagement the plaintiff had done everything required to bring the transaction about, it being immaterial that the buyer’s interest had been fired by a third party.
2. Moveover, it was questionable whether the above term was to be implied in a case like the present, which was not a routine domestic transaction, where the language was arguably inconsistent with the imposition of such a term: see per Woolf LJ in Brian Cooper & Co v Fairview Estates (Investments) Ltd [1987] 1 EGLR 18.
Mark Warwick (instructed by Gandecha & Pau) appeared for the appellant; Roland Higgs (instructed by Cannon Silver Quastel) appeared for the respondents.
