False information about the property in the exposé

The engagement of A to B has nothing to do with the brokerage agreement between B and C.

Attention, layman’s opinion, no legal advice!

The engagement of A with B has nothing to do with the brokerage contract between B and C.

Ok, then let it come to that. The fiancée signed something with the broker, which, as far as I understand, was a declaration of intent - that is not exactly trivial. Now the deal is falling through because the fiancée (allegedly) does not (alone) have the corresponding funds or was not authorized to sign on behalf of the financier to purchase the property.

And then we get a law student from the first semester to dissect it. It takes 5 minutes and the broker won’t be able to sleep from laughing, because he will very likely receive compensation from the failed deal (lost turnover/profit) (of course only from the fiancée who signed the contract) and can sell/offer the property again.

I mean ... if you can sell a thing twice ... who would be at a disadvantage? The broker?

Even at the risk of repeating myself: just the energy spent here trying to pin an error on the broker in order to get out of the matter strengthens my suspicion that the broker acted completely correctly and also provided information.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

The broker's commission claim against the fiancée should only arise if the sale of the property takes place. If the seller refuses to sell to the fiancée, no commission claim should arise either. (Warning, layman's opinion, in your place I certainly would not pay voluntarily). Furthermore, the seller can sell freely (according to the descriptions, the broker does not have an exclusive contract with the seller), so also to the questioner [not to the fiancée].

What remains open is at most whether the questioner (possibly through implied conduct) himself has a brokerage contract with the broker.

How high is the commission in euros?

I assume that confidentiality was also agreed upon in the brokerage contract, i.e. the fiancée is not allowed to tell third parties about the property for sale, otherwise she would be liable for damages.

Otherwise, it would be a bit too easy and no one would pay commission anymore, since someone else always buys than the one who signed, right?

exciting topic

I assume that confidentiality was also agreed upon in the broker contract, i.e. the fiancée is not allowed to tell third parties about the property for sale, otherwise she would be liable for damages.

I don't believe that (last part); anyway, the seller himself advertised (Ebay Classifieds, see #1). It’s logical that a sale without a broker is possible at any time. And Ebay Classifieds is AFAIK free of charge.

First-semester law students might also be interested in whether our questioner saw the Ebay classified ad first or the broker's exposé first.