Jump to content

Bon de Visite


yaz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi, hoping someone can clarify if this document only legally binds the person who signed it and not their partner. I signed the bon de visite, however, it is my partner who is looking to buy. The owner of the property actually has a sign a for sale by owner (a vendre). So trying to find info, if the bon de visite has any legal standing if my partner deals directly with the owner. The only connection that the agency could use is that when she made a file on me she asked for my address, but she didn't meet or know my partners name. Thanks for any info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that you'd be on dodgy ground. Immobiliers charges are quite substantial and I reckon that they would establish the name and address of the purchaser and if your partner's address is the same as yours you can work out what would happen. Whilst the bon de visite may have no legal standing the property has been introduced to you (and consequently your partner) by them. They would have every right to charge the fees. No experience here, just my humble opinion. Bon chance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a small or medium-sized town, let alone a hamlet or whatever, the immobilier will soon discover who has moved into any property.  Assuming you would be living there with your partner, you would then become liable for the lost fees.  If you wanted to avoid paying the fees, why didn't you drive around looking for signs, or look on Le Bon Coin?  At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, it would appear your immobilier has done the job and you should therefore be willing to cough up.

Chrissie (81)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wont go un-noticed, it wont be ignored, if so all the immos would already be out of business, if there is one thing that they have sewn up its their contracts and relations with the tribunale.

However isnt it the seller that actually pays the fees and who would be liable?

In any case knowing how vindictive small communities can be there is no way that I would want to buy Under those circumstances, to sell and move away, just maybe but the deal would have to be in my interests not that of the buyer.

I would not put it past the French justice system to hold the buyer liable if the seller cant be traced or refuses to pay, the system seems to work on a basis of someone is going to pay.

Morally there is no question, the immobilier deserves their fee if the sale goes through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Chrissie"]

In a small or medium-sized town, let alone a hamlet or whatever, the immobilier will soon discover who has moved into any property.  Assuming you would be living there with your partner, you would then become liable for the lost fees.  If you wanted to avoid paying the fees, why didn't you drive around looking for signs, or look on Le Bon Coin?  At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, it would appear your immobilier has done the job and you should therefore be willing to cough up.

Chrissie (81)

[/quote]

I was not going to say anything because I didn't want to assume that the OP's intention was to cheat the immo of their fees.

However, if the intention is indeed one of cheating then it is a reprehensible action and no good will come of it.

We were in the other position insofar as we were the sellers and a potential buyer, having been introduced by the immo, then rang to say they'd seen my advert on leboncoin and would like to buy our house without paying the immo.

OH and I did not want to deal with these buyers even if we could have stuck out for the price and paid the immo anyway.  We didn't think it wise to deal with such dishonest people because who is to say we could trust anything else they told us?  It was likely that there would have been more problems with them further down the line.

I immediately rang the immo and reassured her that we weren't going to accept the offer and for her not to worry about losing her fees.  I think she was so pleased I did that that when I did sell the house myself, within a month, she wrote me a nice email to congratulate me and, even though I had signed up for I think 3 months, she didn't hold me to that contract.

Put yourself in the immo's position, would you like someone to do to you what you propose to do to them?  What is the right and honourable way to proceed?

After all, as has been said, there is no right way to do something wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a layman it would seem to me that legally there would not be a problem with this - the person signing is not the person buying. However, the person signing should be viewed as wasting the immos time as they are not buying a property. I wonder though if in the clauses associated with the signing is one that if the person signing subsequently introduces another person who buys the property then they will be liable to pay the fees.

You could be on a very sticky wicket.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chancer asked

However isnt it the seller that actually pays the fees and who would be liable?

Unquote

Normally no. In most parts of France it is the buyer who pays the fees. I certainly handed over a cheque directly to the immobilier.

But as with all things French there are regional differences and in some areas it is indeed the seller who pays.

Of course it becomes even more confusing as to who has paid what when properties are sold "including all fees"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PaulT wrote

As a layman it would seem to me that legally there would not be a problem with this - the person signing is not the person buying. However, the person signing should be viewed as wasting the immos time as they are not buying a property. I wonder though if in the clauses associated with the signing is one that if the person signing subsequently introduces another person who buys the property then they will be liable to pay the fees.

You could be on a very sticky wicket.

UNQUOTE

That is an interesting slant Paul, and knowing how the French bureaucratic mind works, the OP might be considered as having introduced his partner to the property. As such this would make the OP an estate agent. One who is not registered and is not paying taxes or contributions to the French system.

These of course are misdemeanours which can carry a jail sentence as well as severe fines.

A vindictive estate agent, robbed of his fees might just be tempted. I have know legal battles over much more minor issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="PaulT"]As a layman it would seem to me that legally there would not be a problem with this - the person signing is not the person buying. However, the person signing should be viewed as wasting the immos time as they are not buying a property. I wonder though if in the clauses associated with the signing is one that if the person signing subsequently introduces another person who buys the property then they will be liable to pay the fees.

You could be on a very sticky wicket.[/quote]

No, Paul, no sale, no fee and you are allowed to waste as much of the immo's time as you wish!

It's up to the immo to do their job of showing you a house you do want to buy?

As an aside, I have just had a devis from a workman that OH can't accept and so we will be wasting the man's time[:-))]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="andyh4"]Chancer asked

However isnt it the seller that actually pays the fees and who would be liable?

Unquote

Normally no. In most parts of France it is the buyer who pays the fees. I certainly handed over a cheque directly to the immobilier.[/quote]Both are correct in a sense but at the end of the day as the fees are normally included in the price however you dance around since it's the buyer who is parting with that money it it's they who are paying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that I would do a little research on the topic. Obviously what follows is my understanding of cases reported in French and is therefore limited in its accuracy by my capabilities in French.

The law governing transactions through an immo is "loi Hoguet n°70-9 du 2 janvier 1970"

The most important thing in the transaction is the mandat between the seller and the immo, and it is important to distinguish whether it is "exclusif" or "simple".

The Bon de Visite itself has some issues: from the cases that I have seen reported, the BdV's main purpose is evidenciary, in terms of proving to the seller that the immo is actually doing some work. Its other purpose is to dissuade buyers from trying to go around the back of the immo. It can also be used as evidence that a buyer was introduced by an immo. French courts have ruled however that simply signing a BdV alone is not necessarily sufficient to require a payment to the immo.

In the case where an immo has a mandat "exclusif" then only the agent that has the mandat can claim payment.

However, in the instance where a property is on the market with several different immos at different prices (mandat simple), then the buyer appears to be generally able to choose to complete the transaction through a different agent from that through which s/he originally saw the property. What matters in this case is who brings the transaction to completion, and only that immo can expect payment, irrespective of who made the initial introduction, unless the introducing immo can prove that there was an intention to defraud the introducing immo of the commission.

If however, the buyer signs a "mandat de recherche" rather than a "bon de visite" with the immo, that creates obligations between the buyer and the immo which the buyer would find difficult to circumvent.

Turning now to the issue of what happens if a buyer, having been introduced by an immo, then tries to do a deal with the seller directly: the seller is in breach of his contract with the immo. One of the cases I saw reported concerned a sale where the seller and buyer actually knew each other (they were neighbours) but the buyer was introduced by an immo: in this case the court determined that the immo had made the buyer aware that the property was for sale, which is the fundamental part of his/her task, and therefore commission was due.

Turning to the circumstances which the OP raises: if the immo can show to the satisfaction of a court that the sale transaction was achieved through an introduction that s/he made, then the court will require the payment of commission (or damages and interest) to the immo. Thus, even though the name on the BdV is not the same as the name on the acte de vente, if the immo can show that (for example) the actual buyer became aware that the property was for sale because his/her partner visited the property via the immo, then you would be on VERY dodgy ground if you were to try to avoid paying commission.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="woolybanana"]In this context, what is the status of the agents boards outside a property; surely they do constitute an introduction as they let you know that the place if for sale?[/quote]

I don't think that any immo has ever tried to assert that someone who has gone directly to an owner on the strength of a board outside a property owes them anything. Or at least they don't seem to have tried to take it to court.

Yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The agent who had been deprived of commission would turn to the vendor to make good the loss.

Any vendor will be fully aware of the litigious tendencies of French estate agents

That being the case most sellers would be reluctant to circumvent the agent in the situation described by the OP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...