Thursday, March 6, 2014

Broker Entitled to Implied Commission even without Agreement

The Appellate Court recently decided Harris v. Clancy, a case where the Court ruled that a seller had the burden to prove that a broker had "agreed to forgo a commission" or the Court stated that one would be implied by the Court regardless of the nonexistence of a brokerage agreement.

The Court found support in precedent that held "[a]bsent an agreement not to pay a commission, where a broker has performed as a broker and the seller has accepted the broker's services, an agreement to pay a commission will be implied even in the absence of an agreement regarding a commission ..., and the court will be charged with determining the amount of the commission".

So brokers, while you should always have a brokerage agreement with your client or co-broker to prove how much you are owed, its really your client or co-broker who benefits the most from the agreement, not you. Remember this case the next time that your client or co-broker resists signing your brokerage agreement; then, you may want to share this case with them and say that you are only asking them to sign your agreement to help them out.