False information about the property in the exposé

I find the behavior that some come up with to circumvent the broker contract impossible.

Hello ypg

I agree with you on that. I have merely outlined the situation, which the thread starter has surely already considered. I said that this is morally reprehensible. I would not resort to such tricks. But many have dollar signs in their eyes.

Steven

What is wrong with offering advertising for a purchase item, operating this advertising after the seller's order has been placed, and receiving financial compensation in the event of success?

The broker simply increases the number of potential buyers and purchase objects/sellers – this offers added value to both sides, whether you like it or not. If the broker also provides correct information, one really has to ask what kind of customer behavior it is to want to withdraw from correct contracts just to avoid the broker's commission, whose added value in the form of contact with a seller/land you have already received.

One can only warn against this; I personally know a case where buyers and sellers also thought they were too clever for this world and could circumvent the broker (in that case it was also the Sparkasse, which can regularly conduct data research) despite the contract. The broker notices this, and then things happen very quickly. One page of paper, 70 cents for a stamp, and if no money is in the account within 14 days, the bailiff promptly visits the debtor.

This is completely correct for legally binding valid contracts – you can think what you want about the broker system.

Best regards Dirk Grafe

Quite clearly, if the property is legally fully developed, there is no way out of the contract. Even if it were not fully developed, that does not invalidate the contract; rather, in that case, there would have to be deliberate deception. The only option you have left is to try to negotiate the purchase price with the seller, but at the moment I see no reason for that.

The fact that you personally know the seller is of no use. Of course, it is annoying for you, as you could have also obtained the property that way, but you did not. The question is rather why you did not notice the Ebay Classifieds ad. Consider it a lesson learned, especially since the situation with just land is different from that with an existing property.

A little info from my own circle of acquaintances:
My best friend also saw a property online through an agent and asked the agent to send the exposé. On the same day, his wife heard about the property through relatives. When my friend realized in the evening that it was the same property, he immediately canceled the inquiry with the agent, but since by having the exposé sent he had already waived his 2-week objection period, he ultimately could not back out. Note that no viewing took place through the agent and no purchase intention contract was signed. In the end, the seller bought out of the agency contract (which was somewhat cheaper than the commission), which my friend then took over.

Of course, one gets annoyed by things like this, but ultimately you actually found the property through the agent, and thus he earned his money both legally and morally, period! What you are now trying to do is breach the contract, and I would be very careful with that.

PS: I also believe that some agents are paid too much for the service provided (but only some); furthermore, I do not understand why the purchaser-pays principle does not also apply in the purchase, since the seller clearly benefits more from the agent than the buyer. Nevertheless, this is the current legal situation and you know this beforehand. If I am not willing to pay a commission, then I do not search through an agent. Plain and simple.

Again: the seller has no contract with the broker, but the fiancée does have one with the broker, period.

theoretically correct, practically wrong. there is a contract between the fiancée and the broker, but the broker cannot use it because he has no authorization at all (no contract with the seller) to sell or broker this matter further. the clear mistake here is that the broker should not have offered the matter in the first place. (how does he want to prove that)

as I have already written 3 times, however, the fiancée has very likely had bad luck. she signed and you can’t get out of it like that. without a signature the matter would practically be settled. I also don’t know that you have to properly sign anything for an exposé. normally you just confirm something briefly by e-mail (VPN + fake mail) and the matter is settled.

2 reasonable options now:
- buy and pay commission
- don’t buy and don’t pay commission

The engagement is a legal contract, insofar as "the couple applies"!

However, this does not give the right to conclude contracts on behalf of other persons. Not even in a marriage.

Otherwise, I would agree with your view.
The broker's business model is a mediation service. In my opinion, he has fully fulfilled this and should be remunerated accordingly in case of purchase. But again: layman's opinion.

theoretically correct, practically wrong.
there is a contract between the fiancé and the broker, but the broker cannot use it at all because he has no authorization (no contract with the seller) to sell or broker this matter. the clear mistake lies in the fact that the broker should not have offered the matter in the first place. (how is he supposed to prove that)

You are taking quite a risk here

What do you think will happen if the broker – who certainly has had phone contact with the seller – presents a buyer to the seller?

That the term "fully developed" is simply misinterpreted by laypeople has already been sufficiently explained by Dirk. That it is beneath contempt – no matter what one may think of the broker’s profession – to try to deprive the broker of his commission, I hopefully do not need to explain further.

Rhenish greetings