Blesbok Eiendomsagentskap v Contamessa 1991 (2) SA 717 (T)

Blesbok Eiendomsagentskap v Contamessa 1991 (2) SA 717 (T)

Issue: Whether an estate agent is entitled to commission, even if the sale of the property is not concluded due to the fault of the seller.

Facts:

Blesbok Eiendomsagentskap (Blesbok) was an estate agent. Contamessa (the seller) was the owner of a property. Blesbok entered into a contract with the seller to market and sell the seller's property. The contract provided that Blesbok would be entitled to a commission of 5% of the purchase price of the property if the property was sold through Blesbok's efforts.

Blesbok found a buyer for the seller's property. The seller and the buyer entered into a contract for the sale of the property. However, the seller subsequently breached the contract of sale by refusing to transfer the property to the buyer.

The buyer then sued the seller for breach of contract and was awarded damages. Blesbok then sued the seller for commission. The seller argued that Blesbok was not entitled to commission because the sale of the property was not concluded due to the fault of the seller.

Held:

The Transvaal Provincial Division held that Blesbok was entitled to commission. The Court reasoned that Blesbok had fulfilled its contractual obligations by finding a buyer for the seller's property. The Court also reasoned that the seller's breach of the contract of sale should not deprive Blesbok of its commission.

Key Facts:

• An estate agent entered into a contract with a seller to market and sell the seller's property. The contract provided that the estate agent would be entitled to a commission of 5% of the purchase price of the property if the property was sold through the estate agent's efforts.
• The estate agent found a buyer for the seller's property and the seller and the buyer entered into a contract for the sale of the property. However, the seller subsequently breached the contract of sale by refusing to transfer the property to the buyer.
• The estate agent then sued the seller for commission.

Reasons:

The Court held that the estate agent was entitled to commission because it had fulfilled its contractual obligations by finding a buyer for the seller's property. The Court also reasoned that the seller's breach of the contract of sale should not deprive the estate agent of its commission.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Blesbok Eiendomsagentskap v Contamessa 1991 (2) SA 717 (T) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarifies the law relating to the right of estate agents to commission, even if the sale of the property is not concluded due to the fault of the seller.