Cases - John D Wood v Dantata

Record details

Name

John D Wood v Dantata

Date

[1987]

Citation

2 EGLR 23

Keywords

Estate agency - commission

Summary

The plaintiffs' commission was due 'if we are successful in introducing a purchaser with whom a sale is completed'. The defendant vendor, a Nigerian prince, also instructed another firm of agents, Beauchamp Estates, whose commission was due 'in the event of our producing a successful purchaser'. The eventual purchaser, a Nigerian chief, used both the plaintiffs and Beauchamp as channels for inspecting and making bids, but kept each in ignorance of the other. Furthermore, the vendor did not realise that the bids were coming from the same person as the chief was acting through his company when bids were put through the plaintiffs.

Beauchamp made the first introduction of the chief to the property. About a month later, the plaintiffs re-introduced him to the property, although he deceived them into thinking he had not seen it before. The plaintiffs commenced negotiations with the chief. During these negotiations, the chief acted through the plaintiffs and not Beauchamp. The plaintiffs were informed by the vendor that he would accept £850,000 and their negotiations with the purchaser resulted in bids (from the chief's company) rising from £650,000 to £775,000. But at this point, the chief went back to Beauchamp, and the price was negotiated through them up to £800,000. This bidding was done in the chief's own name. Both the plaintiffs and Beauchamp claimed commission, so the vendor refused to pay either. Both claims were heard together.

Although initially attracted to the argument that this was a case where, on its unusual facts, 2 commissions were due, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment at first instance to award the commission to Beauchamp only. Lord Justice Nourse said that 'introduce a purchaser' means introduce a person to the purchase. So the first acquaintance is not paramount as the purchaser must be led to the transaction. Consequently the court did not attach conclusive weight to the first introduction, although it could not be ignored as it generated the lively interest of the purchaser. The plaintiffs managed to get the purchaser up to the £775,000 mark, but what they did not do was to get him up to the £800,000 price agreed. As that was the achievement of Beauchamp, they were the effective cause.

The statement that the purchaser must be led to the purchase must be read in the context of this somewhat peculiar, 2-agent case. (See London Mews Co Ltd v Burney on this point.) It is well worth noting that Lord Justice Nourse said that, because the case was unusual 'I do not think that our decision is likely to be of any general application.'