Bon de visite query

[stan]

My understanding of the "bon de visite" is that it makes it "unlawful" for a prospective buyer to go behind the back of the estate againt and deal with the vendor directly BUT does it preclude the prospective buyer from buying the same property from another estate agent?

[Rabbie]

[quote user="stan"]My understanding of the "bon de visite" is that it makes it "unlawful" for a prospective buyer to go behind the back of the estate againt and deal with the vendor directly BUT does it preclude the prospective buyer from buying the same property from another estate agent?

[/quote]I thought that the "bon de visite" ensured that the first estate agent was entitled to their commission so there would be no advantage in dealing direct. Buying from another agent would presumably mean paying two lots of commission.

[stan]

Yes that was my understanding of the "bon de visite", however, if a buyer goes to another estate agent, who then shows them around the property again, and they subsequently buy the property, then I do not see why commission has to be paid to the first estate agent, surely such a law would prevent fair competition between estate agents who have the same property on their books.

Or, as a scenario, what would happen if the prosepctive buyer really liked the property, but subsequently fell out with, or did not like the estate agent, or found a competitive "fee" rate elsewhere, surely then the prospective buyer would not effectively be barred for life for buying that property (via another estate agent) elsewhere?

[idun]

Which is one reason why we only used one estate agent. The trick was to ask around and carefully chose an estate agent and negociate a price with them.

[P-D de Rouffignac]

The system is relatively uncomplicated. A vendor can sign one or more non-exclusive mandates with several agencies, who may charge different rates of commisssion (the rate is clearly expressed in the mandate). It is basically an agreement between the vendor and the agent under which the vendor asks the agent to try and sell his/her property, in return for an agreed commission payable to the agent. If the agent succeeds in finding a buyer for the property (and a transaction results), then the agent has fulfilled his part of the contract and the vendor becomes responsible to the agent for the latter's commission.

The 'bon de visite' is just one of the pieces of evidence that might be produced in case of dispute, showing when the buyer was introduced to the property/vendor by that agent. French law and jurisprudence are unequivocal in enforcing the agent's right to his/her commission. The buyer's actions, of the sort you describe, are largely irrelevant: the contract is between the vendor and the agent.

Sales mandates can be cancelled, normally after three months - for example, in the vendor withdraws the property from the market. But many include a clause entitling the agent to commission if a buyer first tinroduced by the agency returns with 24 months and a sale is completed by him/her. Once again, the law is quite clear on this.

[stan]

[quote user="P-D de Rouffignac"]The system is relatively uncomplicated. A vendor can sign one or more non-exclusive mandates with several agencies, who may charge different rates of commisssion (the rate is clearly expressed in the mandate). It is basically an agreement between the vendor and the agent under which the vendor asks the agent to try and sell his/her property, in return for an agreed commission payable to the agent. If the agent succeeds in finding a buyer for the property (and a transaction results), then the agent has fulfilled his part of the contract and the vendor becomes responsible to the agent for the latter's commission.

The 'bon de visite' is just one of the pieces of evidence that might be produced in case of dispute, showing when the buyer was introduced to the property/vendor by that agent. French law and jurisprudence are unequivocal in enforcing the agent's right to his/her commission. The buyer's actions, of the sort you describe, are largely irrelevant: the contract is between the vendor and the agent.

Sales mandates can be cancelled, normally after three months - for example, in the vendor withdraws the property from the market. But many include a clause entitling the agent to commission if a buyer first tinroduced by the agency returns with 24 months and a sale is completed by him/her. Once again, the law is quite clear on this.

[/quote]

So basically the prospective buyer has done nothing wrong by viewing and making an offer for a property using another estate agent who has the same property on their books.

[Pommier]

I would have said that once you've signed a Bon de Visite and viewed a house with an agent, you can only buy through that agent (unless you wait for the mandate to expire).

On another forum someone has recently been taken to court after buying privately following a viewing with an agent. A costly thing to do!

[stan]

[quote user="Pommier"]

I would have said that once you've signed a Bon de Visite and viewed a house with an agent, you can only buy through that agent (unless you wait for the mandate to expire).

On another forum someone has recently been taken to court after buying privately following a viewing with an agent. A costly thing to do!

[/quote]

Thanks Pommier, but is there a definite answer to this? Do I as the Vendor, then have to wait for the mandate from Estate Agent 1 to expire before the prospective buyer can buy from Estate Agent 2?

Possibly I am confusing the issue here. My house is for sale with several estate agents. Propective buyer viewed the house several months ago with Estate agent 1 but nothing proceeded. Recently the same prospective buyer viewed the house with Estate Agent 2 and thereafter made an offer. Estate agent 1 says that the prospective buyer cannot make an offer as they had previously viewed the property with Estate agent 1. Now I am wondering if I can even accept the offer from the prospective buyer as Estate Agent 1, after finding out, were none too pleased. Estate agent 2 has said nothing and is aware that the prospective buyer has already viewed the property with Estate Agent 1. My worry is that Estate agent 1 can put the brakes on the sale should I accept the offer.

[Pickles]

[quote user="stan"][quote user="P-D de Rouffignac"]The system is relatively uncomplicated. A vendor can sign one or more non-exclusive mandates with several agencies, who may charge different rates of commisssion (the rate is clearly expressed in the mandate). It is basically an agreement between the vendor and the agent under which the vendor asks the agent to try and sell his/her property, in return for an agreed commission payable to the agent. If the agent succeeds in finding a buyer for the property (and a transaction results), then the agent has fulfilled his part of the contract and the vendor becomes responsible to the agent for the latter's commission.

The 'bon de visite' is just one of the pieces of evidence that might be produced in case of dispute, showing when the buyer was introduced to the property/vendor by that agent. French law and jurisprudence are unequivocal in enforcing the agent's right to his/her commission. The buyer's actions, of the sort you describe, are largely irrelevant: the contract is between the vendor and the agent.

Sales mandates can be cancelled, normally after three months - for example, in the vendor withdraws the property from the market. But many include a clause entitling the agent to commission if a buyer first tinroduced by the agency returns with 24 months and a sale is completed by him/her. Once again, the law is quite clear on this.

[/quote]

So basically the prospective buyer has done nothing wrong by viewing and making an offer for a property using another estate agent who has the same property on their books.

[/quote]

What you are saying is that the prospective buyer has viewed the property with one agent, then viewed it again with another. The first agent will have a bon de visite from the prospective buyer, and this trumps the second one. As the vendor, you are the one who has a contract with the respective agents, and it is you who will have to pay the commission to the first agent. Presumably the second agent will try to get his commission off you as well, but the lead was supplied by the FIRST agent, not the second. What matters now is: what are the terms of the contracts between you and the respective agents? If you are not careful, you could end up paying TWO lots of commission (or else one lot and then incur all the costs and expense of a legal process whilst the other agent seeks to get paid). The prospective buyer should have told the second agent that he had already seen the property with another agent, but the end result is YOUR problem, I'm afraid.

[PaulT]

I will bow to RDRs superior knowledge but I thought that, technically, it was the purchaser who was responsible for the agents fee.

My understanding is that make your first visit with agent 1 and then buy and you will be liable for the fees.

Of course agent 2 is not worried about your having originally viewed with agent 1 - agent 2 will get their commission and then agent 1 will be after you for theirs.

Paul

[stan]

I do not see how that can be enforced. What happens if the vendor has no idea that the prospective buyer has viewed with a previous agent with whom they have signed a bon de visite, ie the vendor is in UK and the estate agents have the keys. Surely it is the responsibility of the second estate agent, in the knowledge that a prospective buyer has viewed the same property with a previous agent, and then again, why would the second estate agent want to be involved in this activity in the knowledge that it would end up a court case.

[stan]

Another point, as estate agent 2 knew that the prospective buyer had visited the property previously, can he be reported to some govermenet/professional body for knowingly instigating and encouraging an illegal transaction which could have financially disadvantaged the vendor (ie me) through no fault of his own.

[Pickles]

Having had a quick look on some French-language forums, there are some cases

(eg: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000007507705&fastReqId=1561879128&fastPos=2) where it has been held that only the agency through which the deal is finally brought to a conclusion gets the commission. However, there appear to be other cases - to which I do not have links - in which the first agent was awarded the commission. (I also came across this and this)

Some of this may come down to the wording of the "bon de visite" - in some cases the potential buyer has signed a "bon de visite" in which he states that he will not purchase either direct or via another intermediary. In other cases, the fact that the 1st agency had no hand in negotiating a lower sale price was seen as being material.

What it seems to come down to is: going to law to prove a case is time-consuming and expensive, and may not work out the way you hoped. In a similar case, a notaire tried to get the 2nd agency to sign an agreement to cover the costs in the event of a problem with the first agency. Another approach suggested was to get the two agencies to come to an agreement on sharing the commission, on the basis that this would be better than engaging in legal action.

[stan]

[quote user="Pickles"]Having had a quick look on some French-language forums, there are some cases

(eg: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000007507705&fastReqId=1561879128&fastPos=2) where it has been held that only the agency through which the deal is finally brought to a conclusion gets the commission. However, there appear to be other cases - to which I do not have links - in which the first agent was awarded the commission. (I also came across this and this)

Some of this may come down to the wording of the "bon de visite" - in some cases the potential buyer has signed a "bon de visite" in which he states that he will not purchase either direct or via another intermediary. In other cases, the fact that the 1st agency had no hand in negotiating a lower sale price was seen as being material.

What it seems to come down to is: going to law to prove a case is time-consuming and expensive, and may not work out the way you hoped. In a similar case, a notaire tried to get the 2nd agency to sign an agreement to cover the costs in the event of a problem with the first agency. Another approach suggested was to get the two agencies to come to an agreement on sharing the commission, on the basis that this would be better than engaging in legal action.

[/quote]

Thanks for all, that Pickles. I have sent an email to the estate agent who has negotiated the offer stating that I cannot see how he can now sell my property without incurring some legal action on the part of the first estate agent, and that I certainly would not make myself liable to any costs, or delay in selling the property as a result of this. Being Sunday today, I will await his call on Monday and update this post. Thanks to all who contributed, it certainly is a mine field out there, this French property business!

[sid]

Idun, The idea of using more than one agent is to spread your coverage and hopefully attract more viewings, so why limit to just a single agent?

Stan, The purpose of the bon de visite has been explained by PD de R. You can't have it both ways, which is what you seem to want. You have to go into these non-exclusive contracts with your eyes open. If agent A did all the groundwork initially for your prospective vendor, and then agent B claims to make the sale, it does seem unfair. I can't believe I'm defending estate agents, but you have to abide by your contract. As to who is actually liable to pay the commission, I don't know, but I suspect that you would be liable for agent A's lost earnings, and the purchaser for agent B's commission.

It's quite different to the situation in UK as I'm sure you've realised. In the UK you'd walk down the high street of the town of village where you want to buy and look at what's on offer. It would be a waste of time looking anywhere else. Here the agent (or notaire) may be miles away, and particularly so if it's a country property. When we were househunting we had several days where the agent took us 30 miles in one direction and then back through his "home" town and out 30 miles in the opposite direction. Exhausting, and at the end of the day we had only seen 2 properties and the agent had been engaged all day. Their "running expenses" are considerable.

[stan]

[quote user="sid"]

Stan, The purpose of the bon de visite has been explained by PD de R. You can't have it both ways, which is what you seem to want.

[/quote]

Sid, I fully understand the the purpose of the bon de visite, that is not my query. Also I do not want it both ways as you quite wrongly seem to assume.

[quote user="sid"]

If

agent A did all the groundwork initially for your prospective

vendor, and then agent B claims to make the sale, it does seem unfair.

[/quote]

Sid, Agent A did no groundwork for the prospective vendor, yes, they did visit with the 1st estate agent, nothing more. The house was advertised by both estate agents at the same time, and the prospective buyer then, as I have said, visited again some months later with estate agent 2, who showed them the property yet again. The prospective buyer has now made an offer, all fees included, via estate agent 2.

Yes, I now realise, subject to certain cases highlighted in a previous post by Pickles that nothing seems to be set in stone as regards the agents commission in these cases, however I have no wish to be part of any debacle, legal proceedings or otherwise, but simply wish to sell my house.

I will, as you say Sid, check the terms of my contract with the first estate agent in anticipation of my forthcoming conversation with estate agent 2 tomorrow morning.

[idun]

Sid, I do understand that and I was tempted, but french friends really advised against it as they said that I could have problems....... and that made us think long and hard and not do it. 

I have to admit we tried to sell via other means before going down the estate agent route. The estate agent was well known in a local town and had a good reputation, also I knew that people do look in their window on market day. Then there is the internet and frankly it all comes up on the internet anyway.