📌 HOW IT ALL HAPPENED?
A real estate company (SCI) wanted to buy commercial premises in the Lauvallière area for 650,000 euros. Later, the company found out that its offer was never passed on to the seller, and the property was sold to another buyer for 550,000 euros. This led to a legal dispute.
⚖️ WHAT DID THEY ACCUSE THE AGENT OF?
SCI accused the agent of:
✔ Not passing the offer to the seller within the required 8-day period.
✔ Misleading SCI by claiming an existing offer of 830,000 euros, which did not exist.
✔ Intentionally facilitating the sale of the property to another buyer.
🛑 THE AGENT TRIED TO DEFEND HIMSELF
In court, the agent explained that he didn’t pass on the offer due to doubts about the buyer’s solvency. However, he failed to prove that he had requested any financial guarantees from SCI.
🏛 COURT’S DECISION
The Metz Court of Appeal ruled that the agent should have verified SCI’s solvency, rather than ignoring the offer. As a result:
🔹 SCI did not receive compensation since it did not take out a loan.
🔹 The seller lost 100,000 euros, but the court awarded him only 30,000 euros as compensation.
📞 CONTACT ME IF YOU’RE PLANNING TO BUY REAL ESTATE
A well-organized deal is the key to a successful investment! If you are planning to buy real estate, get in touch – I’ll help you avoid mistakes and protect your interests.
⸻
A real estate company (SCI) wanted to buy commercial premises in the Lauvallière area for 650,000 euros. Later, the company found out that its offer was never passed on to the seller, and the property was sold to another buyer for 550,000 euros. This led to a legal dispute.
⚖️ WHAT DID THEY ACCUSE THE AGENT OF?
SCI accused the agent of:
✔ Not passing the offer to the seller within the required 8-day period.
✔ Misleading SCI by claiming an existing offer of 830,000 euros, which did not exist.
✔ Intentionally facilitating the sale of the property to another buyer.
🛑 THE AGENT TRIED TO DEFEND HIMSELF
In court, the agent explained that he didn’t pass on the offer due to doubts about the buyer’s solvency. However, he failed to prove that he had requested any financial guarantees from SCI.
🏛 COURT’S DECISION
The Metz Court of Appeal ruled that the agent should have verified SCI’s solvency, rather than ignoring the offer. As a result:
🔹 SCI did not receive compensation since it did not take out a loan.
🔹 The seller lost 100,000 euros, but the court awarded him only 30,000 euros as compensation.
📞 CONTACT ME IF YOU’RE PLANNING TO BUY REAL ESTATE
A well-organized deal is the key to a successful investment! If you are planning to buy real estate, get in touch – I’ll help you avoid mistakes and protect your interests.
⸻