Image from Google Jackets

Ronald Preston and Partners v Markheath Securites plc

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8831) 6 August 1988, 57-63(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 30 March 1988. The plaintiffs (R), a firm of estate agents and the defendants (M), a property developer were engaged in negotiations for the purchase of a building and its adjacent land. R was acting as agents for the vendors and was assured that he would be retained as M`s agents. R claims that at a meeting in December 1980 it was agreed that their fee should be 10% of the first year`s rent, irrespective of who let the property, and on the sale of the property after letting 3% of the price realised as a project management fee. They also claimed that if M decided not to sell the property they were still to be paid the 3% of what the property would have fetched. The property was let by M without the assistance or knowledge of R and was not sold. M offered R no fee. The court held in favour of M although showing great sympathy for R, on the basis that no binding agreement had been made.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39663 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 18118-1001

QBD 30 March 1988. The plaintiffs (R), a firm of estate agents and the defendants (M), a property developer were engaged in negotiations for the purchase of a building and its adjacent land. R was acting as agents for the vendors and was assured that he would be retained as M`s agents. R claims that at a meeting in December 1980 it was agreed that their fee should be 10% of the first year`s rent, irrespective of who let the property, and on the sale of the property after letting 3% of the price realised as a project management fee. They also claimed that if M decided not to sell the property they were still to be paid the 3% of what the property would have fetched. The property was let by M without the assistance or knowledge of R and was not sold. M offered R no fee. The court held in favour of M although showing great sympathy for R, on the basis that no binding agreement had been made.