MSM Consulting Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania [electronic resource]
MSM Consulting Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania [electronic resource]
- 2009
[2009] EWHC 121 (QB), 30 January 2009. The case considers the basic facts on a claim to recover a commission or a quantum meruit payment. MSM Consulting Ltd (C) was the company of an individual (M). Upon learning that the High Commission of Tanzania (T) was looking for new premises in London, M looked for suitable properties and visited them with representatives of T. M introduced the terms of business to T who concluded that the rates were too high. The terms were never agreed. The relevant ministry in Tanzania eventually appointed an established UK estate agent and concluded the purchase of a property through this estate agent. C argued that T had accepted its terms and conditions and claimed commission for acting in its behalf between 2002 and 2004. "Held": T did not promise to sign C's terms and conditions neither to pay C. There was no contract with C. C had only introduced the property to T. C was not the cause of the eventual purchase which was done by the other agent. The work done by M was in anticipation of a contract with C which did not materialise. C is not entitled to be paid of a commission neither of a quantum meruit.
MSM CONSULTING LTD V UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
FOXTONS LTD V BICKNELL
COUNTRYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS LTD V ICL PATHWAY LTD AND ANOTHER
ESTATE AGENTS ACT 1979 S18
ESTATE AGENTS (PROVISION OF INFORMATION) REGULATIONS 1991
England and Wales--1543-
[2009] EWHC 121 (QB), 30 January 2009. The case considers the basic facts on a claim to recover a commission or a quantum meruit payment. MSM Consulting Ltd (C) was the company of an individual (M). Upon learning that the High Commission of Tanzania (T) was looking for new premises in London, M looked for suitable properties and visited them with representatives of T. M introduced the terms of business to T who concluded that the rates were too high. The terms were never agreed. The relevant ministry in Tanzania eventually appointed an established UK estate agent and concluded the purchase of a property through this estate agent. C argued that T had accepted its terms and conditions and claimed commission for acting in its behalf between 2002 and 2004. "Held": T did not promise to sign C's terms and conditions neither to pay C. There was no contract with C. C had only introduced the property to T. C was not the cause of the eventual purchase which was done by the other agent. The work done by M was in anticipation of a contract with C which did not materialise. C is not entitled to be paid of a commission neither of a quantum meruit.
MSM CONSULTING LTD V UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
FOXTONS LTD V BICKNELL
COUNTRYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS LTD V ICL PATHWAY LTD AND ANOTHER
ESTATE AGENTS ACT 1979 S18
ESTATE AGENTS (PROVISION OF INFORMATION) REGULATIONS 1991
England and Wales--1543-