murraypaul wrote:I think the discussion is getting side tracked into what people think is fair, which has nothing to do with the question.
If:
a) The first agent's contract said that they would paid commission if they introduced someone who later bought the house within X time period
b) The contract said that that entitlement would continue if the customer cancelled their agency
c) They introduced a buyer
d) That buyer bought the house within X time period
Then they are entitled to their commission.
It doesn't matter whether a second agent was hired or the house was sold privately, it doesn't matter what the second agent's contract says, it doesn't matter what seems fair or not. If the scenario above matches what happened, then the agent did what the contract said they needed to do to earn a commission, so they have earned it.
Actually concepts like "fairness", "reasonableness" and "good faith" do determine how such disputes are resolved in practice. People like to think that the technicalities of small print determine the outcome 100% but that is often not how things work out in the real world.
I have probably written over 100 contracts, most of which were residential leases. They were of course carefully crafted and worded to favour myself almost exclusively. But that did not mean that I could enforce every clause and stipulation just like that. Contract clauses can be voided for a variety of reasons. Judgements are made on the basis of what a reasonable person would agree to, including concepts like fairness and public interest. I never said the contract is irrelevant. Only that it is just one of several factors that go into a resolution. A contract is not a suicide pact.
Moreover I have absolutely released myself from other peoples' contracts by claiming that the clause or contract was not reasonable. Just because you sign something does not necessarily entail that you are screwed. it all depends. So then how are such things typically resolved?
I had a number of contract disputes over the years, and not a single one went to trial. What that means is that they were resolved much more informally, either by negotiation, mediation or arbitration. Indeed, one or more of those processes is often required by the courts before proceeding to trial. At those meetings a court official is there making it very clear to the parties that it is expected that a compromise will be agreed. In fact if a party refuses such a facilitated process that can count against them at trial. In each dispute I got some of what I asked for, but never all. We compromised.
So in practice a dispute like this will be resolved by the parties sitting in a room figuring out the best outcome for all concerned. So sure, read the contracts, read the law, but do not lose sight that this is also about real people, how they behave, what their motives were and what is reasonable and fair.