The estate agency agreement at issue said that commission was payable on the agents ‘introducing a person ready, willing and able to enter into a binding contract to purchase’. The purchaser entered into the contract, but then resiled after discovery of a misrepresentation. The contract was cancelled by agreement between the parties on payment of a sum of money by the purchaser. The estate agents claimed their commission but the vendor refused to pay. The agent failed in their action for breach of contract. That action failed.
Held: In this context, a ‘binding contract’ meant one which was legally enforceable by the vendor against the purchaser. Since the contract had been rendered unenforceable by the vendor as a result of the innocent misrepresentation of the estate agents, no commission was payable. The estate agents argued that the vendor could not take advantage of the misrepresentation made by them to the purchaser since she herself had given the relevant information to the estate agents. Singleton LJ did not agree. The making of such a representation to the purchaser without checking the information given by the vendor bordered on recklessness.
Romer, LJ, said: ‘I have no doubt that the contract which [the purchaser] did sign was not a binding contract within the terms of the commission note. I agree . . that ‘a binding contract’ in this context is the same as a legally binding contract, and that means a contract binding on the purchaser and legally enforceable against the purchaser by the vendor. The contract which [the purchaser] signed was never legally enforceable against her by [the vendor] because of the innocent misrepresentation which was made to her by [the estate agents’ representative]. Moreover, the contract was voidable by [the purchaser], who could rescind it the moment that she discovered what the true facts were. Accordingly, it appears to me impossible to say that it was a binding contract within the meaning of that phrase as used in the commission note.
A voidable contract, when rescinded, is avoided ab initio.’
Morris LJ said: ‘The Plaintiffs further submit there was an estoppel. They plead as follows in paragraph 3 of the reply: ‘If it is found that the said contract was not binding on [the purchaser] [the estate agents] will further say that [the vendor] having innocently misled [the estate agents’ representative] who upon [the vendor’s] said instructions innocently misled [the purchaser], [the vendor] is estopped from setting up her own misrepresentation, resulting in the rescission of her contract with [the purchaser], to defeat [the estate agents’] claim for commission.’ But, in my judgment, this is not a case where the doctrine of estoppel can be relied upon. There was nothing to prevent [the purchaser] from proving that there had been an innocent misrepresentation and so from resiling from the contract. Upon proof that [the purchaser] did disaffirm the contract it was shown there had been no binding contract and so that commission had not been earned. There is no evidence, for no oral evidence was called, that had Mrs Pritchard known the true facts as to the road widening she might have purchased at a lower figure and so enabled [the estate agents] to earn some commission. There was no evidence to that effect.
What, then, is the legal basis of [the estate agents’] complaint? [The estate agents] may say that they wasted some time because they had some dealing with [the purchaser] which led to an abortive contract. But there is no claim against [the vendor] on that basis; nor do I see there could be. [The vendor] made no fraudulent misrepresentation to [the estate agents], and no sort of suggestion of that kind is or could be made. [The estate agents] do not suggest that [the vendor] gave any warranty to them of the truth of the representation which she made.’
Judges:
Romer LJ, Singleton LJ, Morris LJ
Citations:
[1956] 1 WLR 1083
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – John D Wood and Co (Residential and Agricultural Ltd) v Craze QBD 30-Nov-2007
The claimant estate agents sought payment of its commission. The defendant appealed refusal of his request for the claim to be struck out. The agency said that the agency’s standard terms applied under which commission was payable on exchange. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Agency, Contract
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.263806