000			01895cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS68057
008			040726n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126921
245			_aBairstow Eves London Central Ltd v Smith and another
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2004] 29 EG 118-123(6)
520			_a[2004] EWHC 263 (QB), 20 February 2004. Claimant estate agent (B) agreed with defendant vendor (S) a 1.5% commission upon selling S's flat if paid within 10 days of completion, rising to 3% if paid thereafter. As the vendors' solicitor (D) failed to pay the 1.5% within the 10-day period, B proceeded to recover the full 3%. The judge held that the provisions of the agreement requiring the full 3% were unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Reg 5(1) and that if the 3% was payable, D would have had to indemnify S. B appealed contending that Reg 6(2) of the Regulations, which excluded adequacy of price or remuneration against services supplied from the assessment of unfairness, did not apply and Reg 5(1) containing the tests of unfairness, was not engaged. "Held": appeal dismissed. Reg 6(2) was inapplicable because both parties had contemplated an agreed operative price of 1.5% with a 3% default provision if S failed to fulfil the obligation to pay within 10 days of completion. Reg 5(1) applied and the 3% commission was correctly determined to be unfair and did not bind the vendors. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aESTATE AGENTS
650			_aVENDORS
650			_aESTATE AGENTS' COMMISSION
650			_aPURCHASERS
650			_aUNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999 REG 5(1)
650			_aUNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999 REG 6(2)
690			_aPROPERTY AND LAND LAW-AGENCY-RESIDENTIAL-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c117768 _d117768