If I bypass the auctioneer

M three

kneeler wrote: »

[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.

Thanks Kneeler, was the case in 1942 or is that piece of law from 1942?

kneeler

Those are the dates the case was heard. The judgement refers to other older cases.

Freiheit

So it appears then that auctioneers are entitled to their fee? but some obviously don't pursue it,probably due to the cost and possible damage to their reputation?.

M three

dudara wrote: »

@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

Ok, noted. but unfair to single me out for pointing out mis spelling when I was on the end of same. Also I did so after being on the end of this type of sarcasm:
"Excuse me, at the risk of confusing you further.."
"You are making it clear that you do not know the basics..."
Why am I being singled out?

M three

Freiheit wrote: »

So it appears then that auctioneers are entitled to their fee? but some obviously don't pursue it,probably due to the cost and possible damage to their reputation?.

Hard to know, going by the detail Kneeler posted its seems that if you hire an auctioneer and they introduce you to the buyer, and the purchase concluded the auctioneer is entitled to their fee. Which is correct.

If an auctioneer advertises your property but you conclude the sale with someone that has nothing to do with the auctioneer and not introduced by the auctioneer then the auctioneer shouldnt be entitled to anything.

johndaman66

kneeler wrote: »

[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.

I'm not proclaiming to be an expert, far from it in fact but on the face of it I'd be a wee bit weary of the relevance of a piece of case law from 1943 in answering the OP's question. I would hazard a guess that in general the same property was not carried by mulitple agents back in 1942 and the vendor did not pay advertising fees upfront to the agent back then (as would seem to me to be the general practice these times from what I hear)...I am open to correction on either of them points though.

As such and among other reasons I would be inclined to question the direct relevance of the piece of case law you cite kneeler. Dont take me up wrong, not absolutely suggesting its irrelevant or attempting to belittle you in any manner, just questioning its relevance in todays world if you will?;)

Milk & Honey

johndaman66 wrote: »

I'm not proclaiming to be an expert, far from it in fact but on the face of it I'd be a wee bit weary of the relevance of a piece of case law from 1943 in answering the OP's question. I would hazard a guess that in general the same property was not carried by mulitple agents back in 1942 and the vendor did not pay advertising fees upfront to the agent back then (as would seem to me to be the general practice these times from what I hear)...I am open to correction on either of them points though.

What difference can it possibly make if a property is carried by multiple agents or advertising is paid up front?

johndaman66

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What difference can it possibly make if a property is carried by multiple agents or advertising is paid up front?

On the basis that you only pay one Agent the commission for selling your property, would all or indeed any of the Agents be able to pursue you, if you had your property on their books and ultimately bypassed them all and the vendor closed the sale by himself.

In a case with multiple agents the vendor does not pay the commission to the Agents that don't sell the property, rather the agent that does (and as far as I know this Agent then usually gives the other guys a cut). But on the basis that the property is ultimately not sold by the remaining agents even though the vendor contracted them to do so could these guys pursue the vendor for the full commission? That was the angle I was coming from.

I do often wonder in cases where an Agent is paid an upfront fee for advertising a property and lets put asking price aside for the moment does a very poor job at attempting to sell it....I'm sure weve nearly all seen the sloppy photos or lack of them on Daft, backing out of appointments to show buyers houses at the last minute, bringing along the wrong keys, not returning phone calls or emails etc...and believe me I can tell you first hand about all this kind of carry on. I know if I was selling a house through such a lapse Agent and I ultimately sold it myself he wouldn't be getting a red cent from me.

Edit: If advertising fees are paid upfront and the Estate Agent does a lousy job in selling the house (or not selling it as the case would be) for reasons such as those afore mentioned should the Agent be paid a commission where the vendor goes on to sell the house by themselves? I know I wouldn't be too keen on handing my hardearned over to them anyway. Lets face it they probably would have being remunerated already for whatever little work they did do once they received their advertising fee.

odds_on

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

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.

The estate agents seem to be weeding a lot of people out - they don't reply to e-mails sent via Daft. I sent six about 3 weeks ago and got one reply. I have a copy of the e-mails and these estate agents won't be getting my custom. There are plenty of properties for sale so I am have an abundance of choice - anywhere in the Republic. And I'm a cash buyer!!

Pablo Sanchez

odds_on wrote: »

The estate agents seem to be weeding a lot of people out - they don't reply to e-mails sent via Daft. I sent six about 3 weeks ago and got one reply. I have a copy of the e-mails and these estate agents won't be getting my custom. There are plenty of properties for sale so I am have an abundance of choice - anywhere in the Republic. And I'm a cash buyer!!

They should be weeding out the timewasters and showing someone like yourself the red carpet these days, there is no excuse for not returning calls etc.

Kosseegan

johndaman66 wrote: »

On the basis that you only pay one Agent the commission for selling your property, would all or indeed any of the Agents be able to pursue you, if you had your property on their books and ultimately bypassed them all and the vendor closed the sale by himself.

In a case with multiple agents the vendor does not pay the commission to the Agents that don't sell the property, rather the agent that does (and as far as I know this Agent then usually gives the other guys a cut). But on the basis that the property is ultimately not sold by the remaining agents even though the vendor contracted them to do so could these guys pursue the vendor for the full commission? That was the angle I was coming from.

I do often wonder in cases where an Agent is paid an upfront fee for advertising a property and lets put asking price aside for the moment does a very poor job at attempting to sell it....I'm sure weve nearly all seen the sloppy photos or lack of them on Daft, backing out of appointments to show buyers houses at the last minute, bringing along the wrong keys, not returning phone calls or emails etc...and believe me I can tell you first hand about all this kind of carry on. I know if I was selling a house through such a lapse Agent and I ultimately sold it myself he wouldn't be getting a red cent from me.

Edit: If advertising fees are paid upfront and the Estate Agent does a lousy job in selling the house (or not selling it as the case would be) for reasons such as those afore mentioned should the Agent be paid a commission where the vendor goes on to sell the house by themselves? I know I wouldn't be too keen on handing my hardearned over to them anyway.

Lets face it they probably would have being remunerated already for whatever little work they did do once they received their advertising fee.

Multiple agency is quite rare in residential sales. Joint agencey happens from time to time but is not common. When either of these events occur there is an agreement made between the owner and the agents about the entitlement to commission and the basis it is to be earned and shared out.
Advertising money is for outlay, not for payment.
The agents earns his fee by introducing a ready able and willing buyer at a price previously agreed with the owner. If the owner sources the buyer himself, unless there is a sole right to sell previously agreed, the agent gets no commission.
Your rant about agents not doing a good job is irrelevant to this discussion. If the agent introduces a buyer and you deal with that buyer and a binding contract is signed, you would inevitably lose a court case brought by the agent for his fee. If you are not happy with an agent, fire him/her. Then go find your own buyer.
The o/p's query seems to be on the lines of approaching the owner of a house he finds is on the market and offering a deal whereby the agent is bypassed, and the owner is persuaded to reduce the price on the basis no fee would be payable to the agent. Most agents wuill sue and will succeed if that happens.

johndaman66

Kosseegan wrote: »

Multiple agency is quite rare in residential sales. Joint agencey happens from time to time but is not common. When either of these events occur there is an agreement made between the owner and the agents about the entitlement to commission and the basis it is to be earned and shared out.

Are you sure about that one Kosseegan? If you go on daft you will very many residential properties being carried by multiple agents. In fact based on the broad search I often run I would suggest at least the half of residential properties for sale at any one time are on the books of more than one agent.

Kosseegan wrote: »

The agents earns his fee by introducing a ready able and willing buyer at a price previously agreed with the owner. If the owner sources the buyer himself, unless there is a sole right to sell previously agreed, the agent gets no commission.
Your rant about agents not doing a good job is irrelevant to this discussion. If the agent introduces a buyer and you deal with that buyer and a binding contract is signed, you would inevitably lose a court case brought by the agent for his fee. If you are not happy with an agent, fire him/her. Then go find your own buyer.
The o/p's query seems to be on the lines of approaching the owner of a house he finds is on the market and offering a deal whereby the agent is bypassed, and the owner is persuaded to reduce the price on the basis no fee would be payable to the agent. Most agents wuill sue and will succeed if that happens.

Fair points. If the Agent does introduce a buyer and the vendor proceeds to complete a sale with that buyer then that Agent would be very much entitled to their commission, no doubt about it.

I was approaching the argument from the point of view that the Agent proves themselves to be incompetent or downright lazy in selling the property....If a buyer and seller were to be introdouced not through the Agent but by other means then in my mind there is a pretty convincing argument that the Agent is not entitled to demand any commission. If I was a vendor in such a position the Agent would most definately need to take me to court before he would see anymore of my hard earned.

I do agree with you on firing the agnet if you are not happy with him/ her. It is without doubt the most logical thing to do in such a situation

Kosseegan

johndaman66 wrote: »

Are you sure about that one Kosseegan? If you go on daft you will very many residential properties being carried by multiple agents. In fact based on the broad search I often run I would suggest at least the half of residential properties for sale at any one time are on the books of more than one agent.

I have never come across a property on the market through more than two agents. Any joint sales are usually in country areas where it might take years for a buyer to emerge.

johndaman66

Kosseegan wrote: »

I have never come across a property on the market through more than two agents. Any joint sales are usually in country areas where it might take years for a buyer to emerge.

Hmm, I can say I've seen a fair few. I would have assumed that even two agents also constitute multiple agents....

Kosseegan

johndaman66 wrote: »

Hmm, I can say I've seen a fair few. I would have assumed that even two agents also constitute multiple agents....

Two agents would constitute a joint agency. In the UK there can be many more involved sometimes six or seven. That is multiple agents. In any case it is irrelevant to the original query.
Introduction of buyer means fee whatever number of agents are involved or however it is apportioned between them. No introduction means no fee unless a very exceptional arrangement was entered into, such as a sole right to sell.

Pablo Sanchez

I think Joint agencies are traditionally used in the countryside where you would instruct a local agent and maybe a larger 'town' agent as well to give it more reach. Not very commen in Dublin residential sales except sometimes for new developments.

Chipboard

We bought our first house in 2003 directly from the vendor. It was with an agent but he was telling me lies and he wasn't communicating with her at all. I knocked on her door one evening and offered her the asking price and we did a deal. As such I would say that we definitely aren't the kind of people who would waste a vendors time. She was damn glad to sell and move on with her life.

She would have signed an agency fee with him to sell the house and he could have used this to pursue her but I think he would have had a hard time convincing a judge as the court is entitled to take his behaviour into account.

That was in different times though. These days I don't think too many auctioneers would have the cheek to claim fees for a sale they didn't win. I know developments which are listed by up to 8 auctioneers and its a case of the one who gets the sale gets the commission.

If a vendor has it with an auctioneer and they decide they want to sell direct they could just tell the auctioneer they aren't happy, pay him for the marketing, send him packing and do the deal afterwards.

I predicted a few years ago that mortgage brokers would get pushed out of the market cos they weren't adding any value, and I believe that alot (not all) of auctioneers will get pushed out also. Most of them are useless. Their listings on Daft are unhelpful, full of errors, insufficient detail, sh1te photographs, difficult to get in contact with, won't return calls and inflexible on viewings. To top it off you can't believe a word they say. I had one recently who swore to me that a A BER rating was genuine so I asked for the BER cert. He rang me back a few days later to say the BER hadn't been done. What an A-hole.

The_Conductor

Word of warning to posters.

Keep on topic- any more offtopic posts concerning people's spelling abilities and/or the state of their mental health- will result in a summary ban from this forum. If you disagree with what someone posts- refute it factually, without attacking the other poster.

Regards,

SMcCarrick