'Effectively introduced' during an exclusive period - what does it mean?

Hi Guys!

I have an issue. I just finished the exclusive period with agent A. It states in the contract that I still owe commission if a sale is happening at any time after the exclusive period with a buyer who was 'EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED' to the property by Agent A.
Now I have Agent B - who I haven't signed a contract with yet and is aware of the situation - he says that he would agree to get a list of people from Agent A - who actually made an offer on the property (which is only 1) and not just anyone who walked through the door for example during an open.
In Agent B's contract there is exactly the same condition btw.. about people 'effectively introduced' by him.

Who is correct? what is the definition of 'effectively introduced'?
 
I would think anyone that was showed the property by the first agent would be 'introduced' by that agent.

You should get a special condition inserted into the contract that buyers were introduced by the 2nd agent and the buyer will be liable to the first agent if there is any extra commission payable.
 
That's exactly what I thought, and what I have put in, and I told that to Agent B, but he wants a list of the people from Agent A and he now says the way he sees it is that it should be a list of the people who made offers and not the 80 people who came through the place during opens etc.
 
My reading of the situation is anyone who inspected not just those who made an offer.

Sure some buyers are turned off by d!@#head agents but they still came in under their banner initially.
 
That's exactly what I thought, and what I have put in, and I told that to Agent B, but he wants a list of the people from Agent A and he now says the way he sees it is that it should be a list of the people who made offers and not the 80 people who came through the place during opens etc.

That is fine, but it is you that has the contract with Agent A and it will be you that is sued if some that didn't make an offer but was introduced by Agent A buys the property from you with agent B.

For privacy reasons I can't see A handing over a list to B either - also for marketing reasons they would want to keep this information confidential.

B is just interested in his commission and may not be overly concerned if you have to pay 2 commissions.
 
My reading of the situation is anyone who inspected not just those who made an offer.

Sure some buyers are turned off by d!@#head agents but they still came in under their banner initially.

What Scott NM said above^^. The words 'Effectively Introduced' covers anyone who made enquiries about the property, including inspections right through to and including contract.
 
B is just interested in his commission and may not be overly concerned if you have to pay 2 commissions.
Exactly!

If he's so confident he's right, make it a condition of your appointment of agent B that he'll receive no commission if it turns out that you had to pay agent A, and see if he's still as sure. ;)

(That's not a serious suggestion, I'm not sure it'd hold up, my point is that agent B is not a lawyer and has nothing to lose from giving you bad advice. You should take advice from somebody who's an expert and/or has a dog in the fight.)
 
What Scott NM said above^^. The words 'Effectively Introduced' covers anyone who made enquiries about the property, including inspections right through to and including contract.
Not according to the case law. I just had to look this up for a mate. There is a house in an estate which is currently being executed (is that the word?). The house is to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the beneficiaries of the estate. The executor contacted my mate (who is a beneficiary) and asked him to find an agent to sell the house. This was done but there have been no offers. So my mate wrote to the executor expressing an interest in purchasing the house himself. The executor now claims a commission is owed to the agent because this was all inside the exclusive period. I don't agree and neither does the case law.

Where two exclusive agency agreements have been entered into the agent claiming commission pursuant to the agreement is called upon to show that the agent can be seen to be the effective cause of the sale.

In order for an agent to secure a commission, mere introduction is not enough and there must be a causal link between the introduction and the ultimate sale of the property.
http://matthewsfolbigg.xdesigns.com.au/property/Real_Estate_Updates_-_Exclusive_Agency_Agreements

Here a some other interesting examples http://www.tved.net.au/index.cfm?Si...Law,_Real_Estate_Agents_Getting_it_Wrong.html

Another thing to note is that the agent entitled to the commission must make a claim. I have been through this with a commercial property. The agent refused to present my offer to the vendor. I contacted the vendor directly, set up a meeting and had a deal within 1/2 hour. This was during the exclusive period. The agent did not make a claim for the commission. The agent would have had no case because he could not argue he was the effective cause of the sale. For some reason he acted to prevent the sale. It would have been a really interesting case if he had made a claim.
 
So do you intend to get this agent to underquote at $700k so that you get more people through? And then set your reserve $900k+ so you some buyer can waste their time?
 
Exactly neK. I will also make sure on the day of the auction to hire a pickpocket expert to steal some wallets for me from the unsuspecting crowd.
 
Exactly neK. I will also make sure on the day of the auction to hire a pickpocket expert to steal some wallets for me from the unsuspecting crowd.

Get some of your somersoft friends to comedown and act as dummy bidders , though let them know the reserve so they don't accidentally buy it .But they can create a hype .

We had an auction n 1994 . After multiple enthusiastic bids , the auction came to a screaming halt . The agent rushed in to tell us we'd just had our first genuine bid ...

I've never heard of double claims for agents fees and it's very common for vendors to change agents .

My assumption is there would have to be somespecific behaviour to deny agent A of their fee , but I'm not a a Lawyer and my last legal assumption turned out to be wrong ( No fall out as we got legal advice prior to acting on my assumption ... If you want certainly , that's what I'd do )

Cliff
 
At the end of the day, if the buyer really wants the property and they see it advertised online they will come back. No agent owns a buyer nor is any buyer exclusive to an agent
 
Perthguy is correct- it's more about establishing the effective cause of sale rather than a simple introduction. Vendors need to cancel any agreement they have with one agent before proceeding to sell with another. Most agents tend not to pursue suspected claims to commission, as it usually proves futile and effective cause is difficult to prove, without a signed contract by the original buyer with the first agent. See an interesting legal case here http://www.attwoodmarshall.com.au/e...l-practice-director-attwood-marshall-lawyers/
 
Back
Top