On the principle of good faith in intermediary service from a case
Update time：2014/9/18 10:16:24 Browse times：308
This is a case undertaken by our litigation lawyer. The case is that a, a real estate agency in Shanghai, sued the seller, the client B of our firm, to pay the intermediary commission, on the ground that it facilitated B to sign the Shanghai real estate sales contract with the outsider C and signed a commission confirmation letter with B. However, because C is a limited person, the purchase contract between B and C was terminated by the court. Among them, C is the limited purchase personnel. Intermediary company a has always been aware of the situation, but has not informed customer B. the reason why the transaction between the two sides is also facilitated is that the intermediary company a thinks that C has a boyfriend with Shanghai household registration, so long as he is married, he will no longer be a restricted person.
In this case, should client B pay the Commission of intermediary company a?
In our opinion, client B is not required to pay the Commission of intermediary company A. The main reason is that the intermediary company, as an intermediary service agency, fails to fulfill the responsibility of good faith and deliberately conceals the important matters in the real estate transaction, that is, the buyer's purchase qualification. As a result, the client's entrusted interest as the intermediary service principal cannot be realized, and the legal right to claim Commission is lost. The specific analysis is as follows:
In our opinion, the principle of good faith should be the guiding ideology for the broker to perform the contract. The intermediary institution has the obligation to truthfully report to the client, whether it is the buyer or the seller of the house transaction. It must report the matters and commercial information with significant influence, such as house purchasing qualification and housing information, without any concealment, deception or mixed with any subjective conjecture. If the important facts related to the conclusion of the contract are intentionally concealed or false information is provided to strip profits from the middle market, which is against commercial integrity and professional ethics. Even if the transaction between the two parties is facilitated, it is still malicious. If the interests of the client are damaged, he has no right to ask for the payment of intermediary remuneration and shall bear the liability for damages. In this case, intermediary company a should take the initiative to disclose whether the buyer is qualified to buy a house at the beginning of accepting the intermediary service entrustment of customer B. Knowing that the outsider in the case is limited to purchase and unable to control the marriage, the two parties still signed the real estate sales contract with risk of performance, which eventually led to the termination of the purchase contract and the failure of client B to sell the house. Therefore, it has no right to ask for intermediary remuneration and should bear the liability for damages.
