County Homesearch Co (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham [electronic resource]
County Homesearch Co (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCA Civ 26, 16 January 2008. Where the court found it inappropriate to imply in a contract a term that a purchasing agent was only entitled to collect commission if he was the cause of a transaction where the specific terms of the contract were inconsistent with this implied term. The fact that selling agency contracts and purchasing agency contracts were similar did not mean that a purchasing agency contract could properly be ignored. Appellant purchaser (C) appealed against a court decision that he had to pay commission to respondent (H) on the purchase of a property. Under C's agreement with H he paid a £500 fee and agreed to pay commission in the event of H introducing him to a property that he would go on to purchase, or if one of the agents working with H made such an introduction. C ended up buying a property listed on one of the lists provided by H, but declined to pay commission once the sale was completed. Held: appeal dismissed. The agreement between C and H did not prevent H from using other agents. The court found that for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 to apply, there had to be a written term where there was doubt as to its true meaning. The fact that it could be argued that a term should be implied did not mean that there was doubt in as regarded the meaning of the term.
Advanced
COUNTY HOMESEARCH CO (THAMES & CHILTERNS) LTD V COWHAM
SHIRLAW V SOUTHERN FOUNDRIES (1926) LTD
TOULMIN V MILLAR
ESTATE AGENTS ACT 1979
UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS 1999
MILLAR CO & SON V RADFORD
BRIAN COOPER AND CO V FAIRVIEW ESTATES (INVESTMENTS) LTD
DOYLE V MOUNT KIDSTON MINING AND EXPLORATION PROPERTY LTD
EGAN LAWSON LTD V STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE CO
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCA Civ 26, 16 January 2008. Where the court found it inappropriate to imply in a contract a term that a purchasing agent was only entitled to collect commission if he was the cause of a transaction where the specific terms of the contract were inconsistent with this implied term. The fact that selling agency contracts and purchasing agency contracts were similar did not mean that a purchasing agency contract could properly be ignored. Appellant purchaser (C) appealed against a court decision that he had to pay commission to respondent (H) on the purchase of a property. Under C's agreement with H he paid a £500 fee and agreed to pay commission in the event of H introducing him to a property that he would go on to purchase, or if one of the agents working with H made such an introduction. C ended up buying a property listed on one of the lists provided by H, but declined to pay commission once the sale was completed. Held: appeal dismissed. The agreement between C and H did not prevent H from using other agents. The court found that for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 to apply, there had to be a written term where there was doubt as to its true meaning. The fact that it could be argued that a term should be implied did not mean that there was doubt in as regarded the meaning of the term.
Advanced
COUNTY HOMESEARCH CO (THAMES & CHILTERNS) LTD V COWHAM
SHIRLAW V SOUTHERN FOUNDRIES (1926) LTD
TOULMIN V MILLAR
ESTATE AGENTS ACT 1979
UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS 1999
MILLAR CO & SON V RADFORD
BRIAN COOPER AND CO V FAIRVIEW ESTATES (INVESTMENTS) LTD
DOYLE V MOUNT KIDSTON MINING AND EXPLORATION PROPERTY LTD
EGAN LAWSON LTD V STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE CO
England and Wales--1543-