A Finder who failed to get his fee.

This case is also about commission.In one of my earlier posts a nephew was held to entitle to the payment of commission from his uncles(sellers). The reason given by the Court was as long as he did not carry out the business of an estate agent ,as long as the deal was an 'isolated act',in another word he must not be seen to carry out the business of an estate agent. Then he will be entitled to the commission.

Here we have a case where the introducer was held not entitled to the commission. The reason given by the Court was that the introducer was in the business of selling properties. In short what he did fit the description of the job of an estate agent.

Before this introducer made it known to the seller that it had a buyer for its property,the seller upon the request of the introducer had agreed to pay the sum of One million as a finder's fee to the introducer.

The property was successfully sold through the introduction of the introducer.The seller refused to pay the introducer the one million as finder's fee.

A finder's fee is not much different from a commission.

The seller resisted the introducer's claim. Evidence was brought to the Court to show that the introducer had been in the business of selling and inviting people to buy properties.The introducer prior to this case had already successfully concluded many huge land deals as a introducer.It was said that the introducer was caught under ss 22B(1) and 22C(1) of the Act (Valuers,Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981.

Anyone found to carry out the business of an estate agent is required to have a license for that purpose.The Court held that the introducer was in the business of an estate agent. Since it did not have a estate agent's license he was held not entitled to the finder's fee of one million.