Fleurets Ltd V Dashwood
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (0734) 25 August 2007, 84-90(7)Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Summary: [2007] EWHC 1610 (QB); [2007] 34 EG 84, 5 July 2007. The appellant (D) entered into an agreement in 2003 with the respondent and cross-appellant estate agent (F) to arrange the sale of a property. The contract entitled F to a commission in the event that unconditional contracts were exchanged within a given period. During that period F had sole selling rights over the property. D became disenchanted with F's services and it was agreed to place the matter on hold, although a selling board remained outside the property. In 2004, F advised D that it had received interest in the property. Mr Akhtar (A) was one of these. Wishing to have no more business with F, D instructed a new agent. A eventually purchased the property through the new agent. F claimed commission, having made the initial introduction. "Held": D's agreement with F had been that commission would be paid for the introduction of a purchaser. Although the negotiations had been conducted entirely by the new agent, F had made the original introduction despite this being unconnected with the eventual sale. F was entitled to a commission under the relevant clause.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 140040-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ONLINE Against the elements | ONLINE PUBLICATION Back to the future | ONLINE PUBLICATION Dos and don't in mediation | ONLINE PUBLICATION Fleurets Ltd V Dashwood | ONLINE PUBLICATION Review of the Land Registration Rules 2003 [electronic resource] and the Commonhold (Land Registration) Rules 2004 | ONLINE PUBLICATION Regional Report Wales | ONLINE PUBLICATION (1) Pitts and another v Earl Cadogan (2) Earl Cadogan v Atlantic Telecasters Ltd [electronic resource] |
[2007] EWHC 1610 (QB); [2007] 34 EG 84, 5 July 2007. The appellant (D) entered into an agreement in 2003 with the respondent and cross-appellant estate agent (F) to arrange the sale of a property. The contract entitled F to a commission in the event that unconditional contracts were exchanged within a given period. During that period F had sole selling rights over the property. D became disenchanted with F's services and it was agreed to place the matter on hold, although a selling board remained outside the property. In 2004, F advised D that it had received interest in the property. Mr Akhtar (A) was one of these. Wishing to have no more business with F, D instructed a new agent. A eventually purchased the property through the new agent. F claimed commission, having made the initial introduction. "Held": D's agreement with F had been that commission would be paid for the introduction of a purchaser. Although the negotiations had been conducted entirely by the new agent, F had made the original introduction despite this being unconnected with the eventual sale. F was entitled to a commission under the relevant clause.