Aboualsaud v Aboukhater & Anor [2007] EWHC 2122 (QB) (19 September 2007)

Aboualsaud v Aboukhater & Anor [2007] EWHC 2122 (QB) (19 September 2007)

The court found that no binding oral agency agreement was made between the claimant and the defendants. The evidence did not establish that Bassam Aboukhater had authority to bind his father or that the essential terms were agreed. The claimant's introduction of Kingdom was not the effective cause of the eventual sale, which was to a joint venture formed independently and after a significant break in negotiations. The claimant was therefore not entitled to commission.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2122 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Waleed Aboualsaud; First Defendant: Bassam Aboukhater; Second Defendant: Toufic Aboukhater
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Agency Authority, Commission Entitlement, Causation in Agency, Effective Cause in Sales
Contract Law Agency Law Commercial Law Oral Contracts Agency Authority Commission Entitlement Causation in Agency Effective Cause in Sales

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waleed Aboualsaud

Claimant

Bassam Aboukhater

First Defendant

Toufic Aboukhater

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding oral agency agreement was made between the claimant and the defendants for commission on the sale of the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's introduction of Kingdom was an effective cause of the eventual sale to the joint venture including Kingdom.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no binding oral agency agreement was made between the claimant and the defendants. The evidence did not establish that Bassam Aboukhater had authority to bind his father or that the essential terms were agreed. The claimant's introduction of Kingdom was not the effective cause of the eventual sale, which was to a joint venture formed independently and after a significant break in negotiations. The claimant was therefore not entitled to commission.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for commission dismissed
  • No order for payment to claimant