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