Wells v Devani

Wells v Devani

An enforceable contract existed between Devani and Wells, as their words and conduct objectively evidenced intention to create legal relations and agreement on essential terms, with commission payable on completion of sale to a purchaser introduced by Devani; any missing term could be implied to give business efficacy. Non-compliance with section 18 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 did not justify dismissal of Devani's claim, but warranted a reduction in commission to compensate for prejudice suffered by Wells.

Parties
Respondent: Wells; Appellant: Devani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Enforceability of Oral Contracts, Statutory Compliance, Commission Entitlement
Contract Law Estate Agency Consumer Protection Implied Terms Enforceability of Oral Contracts Statutory Compliance Commission Entitlement

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wells

Respondent

Devani

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement between an estate agent and a property vendor was sufficiently certain and enforceable despite lacking express identification of the event triggering commission payment
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply with section 18 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 rendered the contract unenforceable or justified reduction/discharge of commission

Ratio Decidendi

An enforceable contract existed between Devani and Wells, as their words and conduct objectively evidenced intention to create legal relations and agreement on essential terms, with commission payable on completion of sale to a purchaser introduced by Devani; any missing term could be implied to give business efficacy. Non-compliance with section 18 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 did not justify dismissal of Devani's claim, but warranted a reduction in commission to compensate for prejudice suffered by Wells.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Devani entitled to enforce contract for commission, subject to one-third reduction in fee to compensate Wells for prejudice resulting from statutory non-compliance