Like many others, the activity of a real estate agent is not exempt from surprises. Many of these surprises even reach the courts: either because the amount of the commission was not stipulated in advance, or because the role of the agent ended up being very different from that originally planned, or because the agent who ended up carrying out the operation was not the same one who initially showed the property to the interested party. Perhaps the case we are discussing today belongs to this last type.
It was about the sale of a farm at a projected price of USD 1,100,000, in which two different real estate agencies had intervened, although at different stages. Despite having shown the property to the interested party and having attempted to reach an agreement between buyer and seller, the plaintiff in the lawsuit – the first to intervene – was unable to complete the transaction and the parties gave up the negotiations. The business was later taken up by a second real estate agency, which eventually managed to sign the deed of sale and consequently received the commission.
The trial was a foregone conclusion: the real estate agency that intervened in the first instance claimed part of the commission, considering that if the operation was ultimately not completed from the outset, it was purely and exclusively because the commission it had proposed was several times higher than that proposed by the real estate agency that finally closed the deal: while the latter charged a commission of 1.4% of the price, the former had proposed a commission of around 8%.
The Court rejected the claim without any mitigating circumstances, both in the first and second instance. In the opinion of the acting Court of Appeals, the real estate agency and the seller had not agreed on the amount of the commission, so that the alleged agreement between the seller and the commission agent lacked a fundamental element. In addition, there were a series of efforts deployed to finalize the deal, which all occurred after the intervention of the first real estate agency: regularization of contributions to the BPS, resolution of a series of issues related to the share package of the selling company, and others. Regarding all of them, the plaintiff did not take any action. In short: in the opinion of all the acting judges, the first real estate agency involved -plaintiff in the trial-, failed to demonstrate that the sale was carried out thanks to its efforts, or that there was a causal link between its management and the deal finally agreed. All of these reasons led to the claim being dismissed.
_____________________
This communication is for informational purposes only. It cannot and should not be understood as legal advice from this firm. Bergstein has a team of specialists who can be contacted to assist you in this matter. For any questions regarding this material, please contact Attorney Facundo Scaron ( fscaron@bergsteinlaw.com ) and
