000			01966cab a2200205 4500
001			L129666
008			050510n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129666
041			_aeng
245			_aFoxton Ltd v Thesleff and another
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 17 EG 122 (CS)
520			_a[2004] EWHC CA, 19 April 2005.Considers whether an estate agent was entitled to its sales commission when the sale of the property was not completed. Appellant estate agent (F) had agreed a multiple agency commission if it sold a property belonging to the second respondent vendor (T). F introduced a purchaser, contracts were exchanged but completion failed. F claimed its commission, which the respondents refused to pay, believing that commission was only payable upon completion, a view upheld in the county court. F appealed contending that the judge had erred in his construction of the word purchaser by reference to the Estate Agents (Provision of Information) Regulations 1991, which cover sole agency clauses, and of the phrase achieved sale price to mean the price achieved on completion. "Held": appeal allowed. The terms of the agency agreement clearly provided that the agent was entitled to his commission following the exchange of contracts. There was nothing to stop parties from relying on events other than completion to trigger the payment of the agent's commission. The achieved sale price meant the price stipulated in the contract and the word purchaser was not limited to the person to whom the fee simple absolute was transferred.
590			_aIKA190505
650			_aFOXTON LTD V THESLEFF AND ANOTHER
650			_aESTATE AGENTS (PROVISION OF INFORMATION) REGULATIONS 1991
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/514.html _zView the decision free of charge at www.bailii.orgƯ
942			_n0
999			_c75201 _d75201