London Commercial and Land Limited v Beazer Lands Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 22 EG 72-74(2)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: QBD 19 October 1990. The plaintiffs (L) were estate agents and the defendants (B) property developers . L claimed commission on the sale price and resale of flats built by B. In 1988 an employee of L phoned B and L claims that it was agreed that B would pay the commission fees proposed by B, 2% on the acquisition price and 2% on the resale. This conversation was followed by a letter which again proposed the 2% fees. Later discussion set commission at 3% but B would not engage L to resell the flats unless they could show how they wished to promote them. Negotiations broke down and B contracted to buy the site direct from the owners for £1.27m. B claims that during discussions they had indicated a wish to pay for the property but B claimed that L never put that offer forward; however notes made by an employee of L show that offers were put forward. It was held that L were entitled to commission of 3% on the acquisition price but nothing in respect of resales.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42961 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 39727-1001 |
QBD 19 October 1990. The plaintiffs (L) were estate agents and the defendants (B) property developers . L claimed commission on the sale price and resale of flats built by B. In 1988 an employee of L phoned B and L claims that it was agreed that B would pay the commission fees proposed by B, 2% on the acquisition price and 2% on the resale. This conversation was followed by a letter which again proposed the 2% fees. Later discussion set commission at 3% but B would not engage L to resell the flats unless they could show how they wished to promote them. Negotiations broke down and B contracted to buy the site direct from the owners for £1.27m. B claims that during discussions they had indicated a wish to pay for the property but B claimed that L never put that offer forward; however notes made by an employee of L show that offers were put forward. It was held that L were entitled to commission of 3% on the acquisition price but nothing in respect of resales.