ASG Law

Tag: Commission

  • Broker’s Commission Rights: When Can a Seller Evade Payment After a Sale?

    In Genevieve Lim v. Florencio Saban, the Supreme Court addressed the right of a real estate broker to receive a commission after successfully negotiating a sale. The Court ruled that a seller cannot unjustly deprive a broker of their commission by directly dealing with the buyer and reducing the purchase price to exclude the broker’s share, especially after the broker has fully performed their obligations.

    The Broker’s Plight: Can a Seller Cut Them Out After a Successful Negotiation?

    This case revolves around an agency agreement where Florencio Saban was authorized by Eduardo Ybañez to find a buyer for a lot in Cebu City. Saban successfully negotiated a sale to Genevieve Lim for P600,000, which included the land cost, taxes, and Saban’s commission. However, Ybañez later requested Lim to cancel the checks issued for Saban’s commission, leading Saban to file a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages. The central legal question is whether Saban is entitled to receive his commission, and if so, whether Lim is liable to pay it, despite not being a party to the original agency agreement.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision that Saban was indeed entitled to his commission. The Court emphasized that after Saban successfully found a buyer and the sale was completed, Ybañez could not revoke the agency agreement to avoid paying the commission. This principle is rooted in the idea that a principal cannot benefit from an agent’s services and then attempt to deny the agent their due compensation.

    The ruling drew on established jurisprudence, citing Macondray & Co. v. Sellner and Infante v. Cunanan, et al., which affirmed a broker’s right to commission even when the seller directly consummated the sale or revoked the agent’s authority after a buyer was found. These precedents underscore the principle of fairness and prevent sellers from unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of their agents. The Court highlighted that Saban had fully performed his obligations by finding a suitable buyer and preparing the Deed of Absolute Sale.

    The Court also clarified that while the agency was not one coupled with an interest, Saban’s entitlement to his commission was based on the successful completion of the sale through his efforts. An agency coupled with an interest exists when it is created for the mutual benefit of both the principal and the agent, not merely for the agent’s compensation. Despite this distinction, the critical factor remained that Saban had fulfilled his contractual obligations.

    Regarding Lim’s liability, the Court found that although she was not a party to the original agency agreement, her knowledge of the agreed-upon purchase price of P600,000, which included Saban’s commission, made her liable. Her issuance of checks covering Saban’s commission was a tacit acknowledgment of this obligation. The Court thus considered the actions of both Ybañez and Lim, who connived to deprive Saban of his rightful commission by dealing with each other directly and reducing the purchase price, a situation which the Court would not countenance. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Lim could not be considered an accommodation party under the Negotiable Instruments Law, emphasizing that Lim did receive value from the checks she issued and did not issue them to lend credit to someone else.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that Lim was obligated to pay Saban the balance of P200,000 due to the circumstances of the case and the fact that she had not yet fully paid the purchase price. Furthermore, Saban was also granted the remedy to potentially claim the excess amount received by Ybañez from Ybañez’s estate.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a real estate broker was entitled to their commission after successfully negotiating a sale, even if the seller attempted to avoid payment by dealing directly with the buyer.
    What did the agency agreement stipulate? The agreement authorized Saban to find a buyer for Ybañez’s lot at P200,000, with any amount above that belonging to Saban as commission and to cover taxes and other sale-related expenses.
    Why did Ybañez ask Lim to cancel the checks? Ybañez requested the cancellation, claiming Saban was not entitled to a commission because he allegedly concealed the actual selling price and wasn’t a licensed broker.
    What was Lim’s defense in the case? Lim argued she wasn’t privy to the agency agreement and issued stop payment orders because Ybañez requested direct payment to him.
    What did the Court of Appeals decide? The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling that Saban was entitled to his commission because the agency wasn’t validly revoked and Ybañez acted in bad faith.
    Did the Supreme Court agree with the Court of Appeals? Yes, the Supreme Court agreed that Saban was entitled to his commission but clarified that the agency was not “coupled with interest”.
    Was Lim considered an accommodation party? No, the Supreme Court ruled that Lim was not an accommodation party, as she issued the checks in payment for the land she and the other buyers acquired and thus, received value for it.
    What amount was Lim required to pay Saban? Lim was required to pay Saban P200,000, representing the balance of the agreed purchase price that remained unpaid.

    This case clarifies that sellers cannot avoid paying commissions to brokers who have successfully facilitated a sale. The decision emphasizes the importance of honoring agency agreements and ensuring that brokers are fairly compensated for their efforts. The ruling serves as a reminder that principals cannot benefit from the agent’s work and then claim ignorance of the agreement. Further, remedies from the estate of the seller may still be had.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Genevieve Lim v. Florencio Saban, G.R. No. 163720, December 16, 2004

  • Broker’s Entitlement: Procuring Cause vs. Consummation of Sale in Real Estate Transactions

    In the case of Manuel B. Tan, Gregg M. Tecson, and Alexander Saldaña v. Eduardo R. Gullas and Norma S. Gullas, the Supreme Court of the Philippines clarified the entitlement of a real estate broker to a commission when a sale is successfully concluded, even if not directly through their efforts. The Court ruled that a broker earns their commission by bringing the buyer and seller together, regardless of whether the sale is eventually made through their direct intervention. This decision underscores the importance of recognizing the initial efforts of brokers in facilitating real estate transactions.

    Brokering a Deal: Who Gets the Commission When the Seller Circumvents the Agent?

    The case revolves around a dispute over a broker’s fee for the sale of a large parcel of land in Cebu. Spouses Eduardo and Norma Gullas, the landowners, authorized Manuel Tan, a licensed real estate broker, along with his associates, Gregg Tecson and Alexander Saldaña, to negotiate the sale of their land. The brokers introduced representatives from the Sisters of Mary to the Gullases, who expressed interest in purchasing the property. Subsequently, the Gullases directly transacted with the Sisters of Mary, bypassing the brokers and refusing to pay their commission, claiming another agent was responsible for the sale. The central legal question is whether the brokers are entitled to a commission for initiating the sale, even though the final transaction was completed without their direct involvement.

    The petitioners, Tan, Tecson, and Saldaña, argued that they were the efficient procuring cause of the sale and should receive their agreed-upon commission. They asserted that they introduced the buyer to the seller, setting the sale in motion. On the other hand, the respondents, the Gullas spouses, contended that another broker, Roberto Pacana, was responsible for the sale, and the Sisters of Mary had already decided to buy the property through Pacana. They claimed that the petitioners were not entitled to any commission. The Regional Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the brokers, awarding them the commission, attorney’s fees, and costs of litigation. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court analyzed the role of a broker, defining it as one who brings parties together for trade, commerce, or navigation. The Court emphasized the distinction between an agent, who receives a commission upon the successful conclusion of a sale, and a broker, who earns their pay merely by bringing the buyer and seller together. The Court cited the case of Alfred Hahn v. Court of Appeals and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW), where it was established that a broker is entitled to compensation for bringing the parties together, regardless of whether the sale is eventually made through their efforts. This principle is crucial in determining the rights and responsibilities of real estate brokers in the Philippines.

    An agent receives a commission upon the successful conclusion of a sale. On the other hand, a broker earns his pay merely by bringing the buyer and the seller together, even if no sale is eventually made.”

    The Supreme Court found that the brokers were indeed responsible for introducing the Sisters of Mary to the Gullas spouses. The Court noted the absence of substantial evidence to support the Gullases’ claim that another broker, Pacana, had initiated the sale. The Court pointed out that the Gullases failed to present witnesses to substantiate their claim, and the special power of attorney in favor of Pacana was undated and unnotarized, raising doubts about its validity. The Court emphasized that it gives great respect to the trial court’s evaluation of the witnesses in the absence of any showing that the court overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and influence, which, if reconsidered, would alter the outcome of the case.

    Building on this, the Supreme Court determined that the Gullas spouses were attempting to evade payment of the commission rightfully belonging to the brokers. There was no dispute regarding the brokers’ role in initiating the transaction. They set the sale in motion but were prevented from participating in its consummation by the actions of the Gullases. Therefore, the Court concluded that the brokers were entitled to the commission, regardless of whether the sale was concluded through their direct efforts. The Court considered that the brokers’ commission should be based on the actual purchase price of P200.00 per square meter, rather than the initially offered price of P530.00 per square meter, to avoid unjust enrichment.

    In this case, the special power of attorney granted to the petitioners stipulated a 3% commission for the sale of the land. The Court adhered to this agreement, ensuring that the brokers received the compensation they were entitled to under the terms of their engagement. Moreover, the Court upheld the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of P50,000.00. This award acknowledges the legal expenses incurred by the brokers in pursuing their claim. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of honoring contractual agreements and compensating brokers for their efforts in facilitating real estate transactions.

    The Supreme Court addressed the issue of determining the appropriate compensation for real estate brokers in situations where their efforts initiate a sale, but the transaction is finalized without their direct involvement. The Court’s emphasis on the “procuring cause” doctrine clarifies that brokers are entitled to a commission when they bring the buyer and seller together, regardless of whether they directly conclude the sale. This doctrine protects brokers from being unfairly deprived of their compensation when sellers attempt to bypass them after they have successfully introduced a potential buyer. This approach contrasts with situations where brokers play a minimal role in facilitating the transaction. For instance, if a broker merely provides information about a property without actively engaging in negotiations or introducing the buyer to the seller, they may not be entitled to a commission. The key factor is the extent to which the broker’s efforts contribute to bringing about the sale.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the real estate brokers were entitled to a commission for the sale of a property when they introduced the buyer to the seller, but the sale was finalized without their direct involvement.
    What is the “procuring cause” doctrine? The “procuring cause” doctrine states that a broker is entitled to a commission if their actions are the primary reason for bringing about a sale, even if they did not directly close the deal.
    How did the Supreme Court define a “broker” in this case? The Supreme Court defined a broker as someone who brings parties together for trade, commerce, or navigation, earning their pay by connecting the buyer and seller.
    What evidence did the respondents present to support their claim that another broker was responsible for the sale? The respondents presented an undated and unnotarized special power of attorney in favor of another broker, but the Court found this evidence insufficient to prove that this broker initiated the sale.
    What was the basis for calculating the broker’s commission in this case? The broker’s commission was based on the actual purchase price of the land (P200.00 per square meter) as stipulated in the special power of attorney, rather than the initially offered price.
    Did the Supreme Court award attorney’s fees to the petitioners? Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s award of P50,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs of litigation to the petitioners.
    What was the main reason for the Court of Appeals’ decision being reversed? The Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed because it failed to recognize the petitioners as the efficient procuring cause of the sale, despite their introduction of the buyer to the seller.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for real estate brokers in the Philippines? This ruling reinforces the rights of real estate brokers to receive commissions when they initiate a sale, even if the transaction is ultimately concluded without their direct intervention.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tan v. Gullas serves as a significant precedent for real estate transactions in the Philippines. It clarifies the rights of brokers and emphasizes the importance of honoring contractual agreements. The ruling ensures that brokers are fairly compensated for their efforts in bringing buyers and sellers together. This fosters transparency and fairness in the real estate industry.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Manuel B. Tan, Gregg M. Tecson And Alexander Saldaña, Petitioners, Vs. Eduardo R. Gullas And Norma S. Gullas, Respondents., G.R. No. 143978, December 03, 2002

  • Solidary Liability in Agency: Agent’s Right to Full Commission from Any Co-Principal

    In a contract of agency involving multiple principals, the Supreme Court affirmed that an agent is entitled to recover the full commission from any one of the co-principals, establishing their solidary liability. This ruling clarifies that the agent’s right to compensation is not diminished by the presence of other co-owners or agents, solidifying the agent’s position in receiving their due compensation. This decision ensures agents are protected and can claim their full commission from any of the principals, reinforcing the binding nature of agency agreements and the responsibilities of principals within such arrangements.

    Commission Quest: Can an Agent Demand Full Payment from Just One Co-Principal?

    The case revolves around Francisco Artigo, a real estate broker, and the De Castros, co-owners of a property. Artigo was engaged by Constante Amor De Castro to sell their property, with a promised 5% commission. After Artigo found a buyer and the sale was completed, a dispute arose over the full commission. Artigo claimed he was owed the balance of his commission, while the De Castros argued that other agents were involved and that the purchase price was lower than claimed. This led to a legal battle, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court, which focused on whether Artigo could claim the entire unpaid commission from only Constante and Corazon Amor De Castro, without involving the other co-owners.

    The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the failure to include all co-owners of the property as indispensable parties warranted the dismissal of Artigo’s complaint. The De Castros argued that since the property was co-owned by four individuals, all of them should have been included in the lawsuit, as they were all responsible for paying the commission. However, the Court found this argument without legal basis, emphasizing the solidary nature of the co-owners’ obligations. An indispensable party is defined as someone whose interest would be affected by the court’s action, and without whom, no final determination can be made.

    The Supreme Court anchored its decision on Article 1915 of the Civil Code, which explicitly addresses the liability of multiple principals in an agency agreement. This article states:

    Art. 1915. If two or more persons have appointed an agent for a common transaction or undertaking, they shall be solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences of the agency.

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the solidary liability arises from the common interest of the principals, not merely from the act of constituting the agency. This means that each principal is individually liable for the entire obligation, and the agent can recover the full compensation from any one of them. The commentary on Article 1915 further clarifies this point:

    “The solidarity arises from the common interest of the principals, and not from the act of constituting the agency. By virtue of this solidarity, the agent can recover from any principal the whole compensation and indemnity owing to him by the others.”

    The Court also cited Article 1216 of the Civil Code, reinforcing the right of a creditor to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors:

    Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.

    This provision solidifies the agent’s ability to pursue a claim against any co-principal without the necessity of including all others, as also stated in Operators Incorporated vs. American Biscuit Co., Inc., 154 SCRA 738 (1987):

    “x x x solidarity does not make a solidary obligor an indispensable party in a suit filed by the creditor.”

    The De Castros further argued that Artigo’s claim had been extinguished by full payment, waiver, or abandonment, asserting that Artigo was merely one of several agents involved in the sale. They contended that he was only entitled to a proportionate share of the commission and that his inaction and failure to protest estopped him from recovering more than what he had already received. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that the contract of agency between Constante and Artigo was the law between them, obligating both parties to comply with its terms in good faith. The Court noted that the intervention of other agents, some of whom were employees of the buyer, did not alter the original agreement granting Artigo a 5% commission.

    The Court also addressed the defense of laches, which the De Castros raised based on Artigo’s delay in filing the complaint. The Court clarified that the action was filed within the ten-year prescriptive period for actions based on a written contract, as provided under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Since the complaint was filed within this period, the defense of laches was deemed inapplicable. The Supreme Court emphasized that a delay within the prescriptive period is sanctioned by law and does not bar relief, citing Agra vs. Philippine National Bank, 309 SCRA 509 (1999).

    Finally, the Court upheld the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Artigo. The Court found that the De Castros acted in bad faith by refusing to pay Artigo his due commission, justifying the award of damages. The Court noted that such awards are within the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

    In summary, this case underscores the importance of clearly defined agency agreements and the solidary liability of co-principals. It provides clarity on the rights of agents to claim their full commission from any one of the co-principals, safeguarding their interests and ensuring fair compensation for their services.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an agent could claim the entire unpaid commission from only one or some of the co-principals in a contract of agency, without including all co-owners in the lawsuit.
    What does solidary liability mean in this context? Solidary liability means that each co-principal is individually responsible for the entire obligation, allowing the agent to recover the full commission from any one of them.
    Why did the Court reject the argument that all co-owners were indispensable parties? The Court rejected this argument because the law expressly provides for solidary liability among co-principals, meaning any one of them can be held liable for the entire debt.
    What is the significance of Article 1915 of the Civil Code? Article 1915 states that if multiple persons appoint an agent for a common transaction, they are solidarily liable to the agent for all consequences of the agency, securing the agent’s right to full compensation.
    What was the basis for awarding moral damages to Artigo? Moral damages were awarded because the De Castros acted in bad faith by refusing to pay Artigo his due commission, showing a wanton disregard of their contractual obligations.
    How does this ruling affect real estate agents in similar situations? This ruling protects real estate agents by ensuring they can claim their full commission from any one of the co-principals, reinforcing the binding nature of agency agreements.
    What is the prescriptive period for filing an action based on a written contract? The prescriptive period for filing an action based on a written contract, such as a contract of agency, is ten years from the time the right of action accrues.
    Why did the Court reject the defense of laches in this case? The Court rejected laches because Artigo filed the action within the ten-year prescriptive period, and the delay was not considered unreasonable given the circumstances.
    Can other agents intervening in a sale affect the original agent’s commission? The intervention of other agents, even if they contribute to the sale, does not diminish the original agent’s right to the agreed-upon commission.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case provides critical guidance on the responsibilities of co-principals in agency agreements and the rights of agents to receive their full commission. This ruling emphasizes the importance of good faith and fair dealing in contractual relationships and ensures that agents are adequately protected under the law.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Constante Amor De Castro and Corazon Amor De Castro vs. Court of Appeals and Francisco Artigo, G.R. No. 115838, July 18, 2002

  • Real Estate Broker Commission: When Are You Entitled to Payment?

    Expiration Doesn’t Always Mean No Commission: Understanding Broker Entitlement

    G.R. No. 76969, June 09, 1997

    Imagine you’re a real estate broker. You introduce a buyer to a seller, but the deal takes longer than expected, and your agency agreement expires. Are you still entitled to your commission if the sale eventually goes through? This question lies at the heart of many disputes, and the case of Inland Realty Investment Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals provides valuable insights. This case clarifies that merely introducing a buyer doesn’t automatically guarantee a commission; the broker must be the ‘efficient procuring cause’ of the sale.

    The ‘Efficient Procuring Cause’ Doctrine

    The legal principle at play here is the concept of an ‘efficient procuring cause.’ This means that a broker is only entitled to a commission if their actions directly and proximately led to the successful completion of the sale. It’s not enough to simply introduce a buyer; the broker must actively participate in the negotiations and contribute significantly to the final agreement. Philippine law, particularly the Civil Code provisions on agency, governs the relationship between a principal (seller) and an agent (broker).

    Article 1897 of the Civil Code states: ‘The agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers.’ This highlights the agent’s responsibility to act within their authority. Article 1919 further elaborates on the modes of extinguishment of agency:

    1. By its revocation;
    2. By the withdrawal of the agent;
    3. By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;
    4. By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency;
    5. By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency;
    6. By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted.

    For example, if a broker’s authority expires and the seller independently negotiates and finalizes a sale with the buyer originally introduced by the broker, the broker may not be entitled to a commission because they were not the efficient procuring cause at the time of the sale.

    The Inland Realty Case: A Timeline of Events

    The Inland Realty case involved a dispute over a broker’s commission for the sale of shares in Architects’ Bldg., Inc. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • Initial Authority: Gregorio Araneta, Inc. granted Inland Realty a 30-day authority to sell its shares in Architects’ Bldg., Inc.
    • Counter-Proposal: Inland Realty introduced Stanford Microsystems, Inc. as a potential buyer, who offered a lower price than the asking price.
    • Authority Extensions: The authority to sell was extended several times, but eventually expired on January 1, 1976.
    • Sale Consummation: Over a year later, on July 8, 1977, Araneta, Inc. sold the shares to Stanford Microsystems, Inc.
    • Commission Claim: Inland Realty demanded a 5% broker’s commission, which Araneta, Inc. declined.

    The lower courts ruled against Inland Realty, finding that their agency had expired and they were not the efficient procuring cause of the sale. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. The Court emphasized the significant time lapse between the expiration of the agency and the final sale, stating, “Petitioners were not the efficient procuring cause in bringing about the sale in question on July 8, 1977 and are, therefore, not entitled to the stipulated broker’s commission of ‘5% on the total price.’“

    The Court also noted that Inland Realty failed to prove any active involvement in the negotiations leading up to the sale after their authority expired. “From September 16, 1975 to January 1, 1976, when petitioners’ authority to sell was subsisting, if at all, petitioners had nothing to show that they actively served their principal’s interests, pursued to sell the shares in accordance with their principal’s terms and conditions, and performed substantial acts that proximately and causatively led to the consummation of the sale to Stanford of Araneta, Inc.’s 9,800 shares in Architects’.“

    The Supreme Court highlighted the broker’s lack of continued involvement, stating, “Certainly, when the lapse of the period of more than one (1) year and five (5) months between the expiration of petitioners’ authority to sell and the consummation of the sale, is viewed in the context of the utter lack of evidence of petitioners’ involvement in the negotiations between Araneta, Inc. and Stanford during that period and in the subsequent processing of the documents pertinent to said sale, it becomes undeniable that the respondent Court of Appeals did not at all err in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of petitioners’ claim for unpaid brokerage commission.“

    Practical Implications for Brokers and Sellers

    This case serves as a crucial reminder for real estate brokers to actively pursue sales and maintain communication with both buyers and sellers throughout the entire process. It also highlights the importance of clearly defined agency agreements with specific timelines and renewal clauses. For sellers, it underscores the need to document all negotiations and interactions, especially after a broker’s authority has expired.

    Key Lessons:

    • Maintain Active Involvement: Brokers must actively participate in negotiations and demonstrate their contribution to the sale.
    • Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all communications, offers, and counter-offers.
    • Renew Agreements: Ensure agency agreements are renewed if the sales process extends beyond the initial term.
    • Define Scope: Clearly define the scope of the broker’s authority and responsibilities in the agency agreement.

    For instance, imagine a broker introduces a buyer for a commercial property. The initial offer is rejected, and the broker’s agreement expires. If the broker continues to facilitate discussions and eventually helps bridge the gap between the buyer and seller, they are more likely to be considered the ‘efficient procuring cause’ even if the final sale occurs after the agreement’s expiration.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What does ‘efficient procuring cause’ mean?

    A: It means the broker’s actions directly and proximately led to the successful completion of the sale.

    Q: If I introduce a buyer, am I automatically entitled to a commission?

    A: No, merely introducing a buyer is not enough. You must actively participate in the negotiations and contribute significantly to the final agreement.

    Q: What happens if my agency agreement expires before the sale is finalized?

    A: You may still be entitled to a commission if you can prove you were the ‘efficient procuring cause’ of the sale, even after the expiration of the agreement.

    Q: How can I protect my right to a commission?

    A: Maintain active involvement in the negotiations, document all communications, and ensure your agency agreement is renewed if necessary.

    Q: What should a seller do if a broker’s agreement has expired?

    A: Document all subsequent negotiations and interactions independently, especially if the original broker is no longer actively involved.

    Q: Is a verbal agreement to extend a brokerage contract valid?

    A: While a verbal agreement might be binding, it is always best practice to have any extensions or modifications to a brokerage contract documented in writing to avoid disputes.

    Q: Can a broker claim commission if the buyer they introduced buys the property years after the brokerage agreement expired?

    A: It is highly unlikely. The broker would need to demonstrate continuous involvement and that their initial introduction was the direct and efficient cause of the eventual sale, which would be difficult to prove after a significant time lapse.

    ASG Law specializes in real estate law and contract disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.