Cases - Foxtons v Pelkey-Bicknell and Anor
Record details
- Name
- Foxtons v Pelkey-Bicknell and Anor
- Date
- [2008]
- Citation
- EWCA Civ 419
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Estate agency - Estate Agents Act 1979 - 'purchaser introduced by us' - meaning of
- Summary
-
Foxtons were instructed to sell a property on a sole agency basis. A gentleman, Mr L, was shown the property and showed an interest in it. However, his wife, Mrs L, rejected the property. Foxtons were disinstructed and took no further part in the marketing of the property. Approximately 12 months later Mrs L saw the property again through Hamptons and eventually purchased it. Foxtons became aware of the purchase and sought a fee from the vendor. Foxtons won the case at first instance and the vendor appealed.
Foxtons were not entitled to their fee. The phrase 'a purchaser introduced by us' should be read as meaning 'a person who becomes a purchaser as a result of our introduction'. This reading, albeit slightly strained, was superior to one that made a vendor liable for a fee potentially ad infinitum. Mrs L had rejected the property when shown it by Foxtons and it was the work of Hamptons that had revived a lost interest. Therefore, following the favoured reading of the court, Mrs L was not introduced to the sale by Foxtons but by Hamptons, and therefore Foxtons were not entitled to their fees.
The phrase 'introduced by us' in the Provision of Information Regulations should not be construed as having its natural meaning. It must be construed as requiring an agent to introduce a purchaser to the purchase and not just to the property.
Agents cannot assume that because they have introduced someone to a property which they later purchase that they can automatically claim a fee. They must introduce the purchaser to the sale.