Image from Google Jackets

County Homesearch Co (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [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.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Book Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 146353-1001

[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.