Brodie, Marshall and Co (Hotel Division) Ltd v Sharer: 1988

The defendant resisted payment of his estate agent’s charges. The agency contract gave the agent sole selling rights, but the purchaser was found on the vendor’s own initiative. The terms made commission was payable if ‘we introduce directly of indirectly a person who agrees to purchase the property.’ Further ‘if during the period of our sole selling agreement the owner deals with a person not introduced by us or by any other agent, we shall be entitled to the same commission as if we had introduced such person.’ The defendant had not withdrawn the plaintiff’s instructions, but the introduction was not by any person within the terms defined.
Held: The agent could recover his commission. The clauses were clear and unambiguous, and had properly been brought to the attention of the defendant. The terms were neither onerous, nor unusual.


White J


[1988] 1 EGLR 21, [1988] 19 EG 129


England and Wales


CitedLuxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper HL 1941
The vendor company had instructed agents to sell properties on its behalf and had agreed to pay commission on completion of the sale. The sale was agreed with a prospective purchaser introduced by the agents. Before the sale was completed, the . .
CitedJaques v Lloyd D George and Partners 1968
. .
CitedInterfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CA 12-Nov-1987
Incorporation of Onerous Terms Requires More Care
Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date.
Held: The plaintiff had not . .
CitedThornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd CA 18-Dec-1970
The claimant had suffered damage at the defendant’s car park. The defendant relied upon an exemption clause printed on the ticket, and now appealed against rejection of its defence under the clause.
Held: The appeal failed. The more extreme an . .

Cited by:

CitedG and S Properties v Donald Francis and Another SCS 13-Jun-2001
The pursuers were contracted to sell a property with sole selling rights. The contract was terminable on two weeks notice. Notice was given, and another company engaged. A buyer confused the two agents and obtained details from the pursuer’s office, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.231524