Day Morris Associates v Voyce and another
Day Morris Associates v Voyce and another
- 2003
- Estates Gazette Case Summaries [2003] 12 EG 129 (CS) .
[2003] EWCA Civil 189, 26 February 2003. The respondent couple (V) was divorcing and the appellant estate agents (D) were asked by the wife to advise on the disposal of the matrimonial home. The wife failed to return a signed copy of D's letter confirming the instructions to sell. D introduced a purchaser (L) to the husband who as a result of ancillary relief proceedings had been given sole conduct of the sale. The husband sold the property to L directly after his wife had instructed D to cease marketing the property because her husband intended to re-mortgage it. D appealed afterproceedings to claim commission from V were dismissed because the sale to L was not by the wife in the sense of it being within her power and choice. "Held" appeal allowed. Although the wife had not signed D's instructions' letter, she had accepted it by her conduct and there could be no reservation constructed to the effect that the wife had to have control of the sale before commission became payable. She had therefore to pay commission to D and was to be indemnified by the husband. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
ESTATE AGENTS ACT 1979 S18
INSTRUCTIONS
DAY MORRIS ASSOCIATES V VOYCE AND ANOTHER
ESTATE AGENTS
COMMISSION
CONFIRMATION OF INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITING
JOINT OWNERS
[2003] EWCA Civil 189, 26 February 2003. The respondent couple (V) was divorcing and the appellant estate agents (D) were asked by the wife to advise on the disposal of the matrimonial home. The wife failed to return a signed copy of D's letter confirming the instructions to sell. D introduced a purchaser (L) to the husband who as a result of ancillary relief proceedings had been given sole conduct of the sale. The husband sold the property to L directly after his wife had instructed D to cease marketing the property because her husband intended to re-mortgage it. D appealed afterproceedings to claim commission from V were dismissed because the sale to L was not by the wife in the sense of it being within her power and choice. "Held" appeal allowed. Although the wife had not signed D's instructions' letter, she had accepted it by her conduct and there could be no reservation constructed to the effect that the wife had to have control of the sale before commission became payable. She had therefore to pay commission to D and was to be indemnified by the husband. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
ESTATE AGENTS ACT 1979 S18
INSTRUCTIONS
DAY MORRIS ASSOCIATES V VOYCE AND ANOTHER
ESTATE AGENTS
COMMISSION
CONFIRMATION OF INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITING
JOINT OWNERS