Fees fees when signing a sign or deposit with unrealized operation
The first ray of light, appears in 2013, when the Supreme Court, in the March 8 Sentence (see it here ), puts black on white interpretive axes on which the main characterization of this concept of "mediation", whatever it is called according to the practices and uses of each site, the truth is that it is not a work contract, in which the achievement of a concrete result is entrusted, but it is a service lease contract, atypical (with traits of the commercial mediation contract, and even the civil mandate), substantively own and independent of the subsequent contract of sale, so that "the perfection of the order" (in the proper sense, it must be understood as consummation) or "the success of the mediation" occur when "the activity of the mediator determines the existence of a framework or business link that posi bilita the acquisitive purpose of the bidder, independently of the execution or consummation thereof. " That is, the order or mediation is fulfilled when the buyer and seller are contacted, setting the bargaining framework.
The case prosecuted by the Supreme Court was that of an order that had been conferred by the potential buyer , which instructed a mediator to search for assets for its acquisition. Although it is usual for the assignment to be conferred by the potential vendor, not the potential copter, the conclusions of the Supreme Court are applicable to both cases.
In the event, the mediator negotiated and obtained an option contract. purchase and, finally, by various avatars between buyer and seller, the option is not exercised and the sale is not carried out.
The Court, not only declares the right to the collection of fees or commission the agency in that case but, in addition, the Court warns that the conclusion reached is applicable to all those cases in which "achieved the perfection or effectiveness of the negotiating framework compliance or consummation thereof is not given by other people's causes to the entrusted management ".
After that first step, now, by the Judgment of May 21, 2014 (you can consult here ), the Supreme Court sets as jurisprudential doctrine that: "the mediator in charge of the sale of a home is entitled to the full compensation of the commission agreed when its management is decisive or decisive for "the good order" or "success" of the order made, regardless of whether the sale takes place without your knowledge and of the final price resulting from the same ".
Therefore, and in principle, the disparity of criteria is over. The Supreme Court has established when it is understood that the mediator has fulfilled his order (when his management is decisive for the success of the order), and, therefore, when his fees are accrued, and even more, how much he must charge for this (the full remuneration of the agreed commission), regardless of the avatars that may be suffered by the final purchase contract.
Be that as it may, and in order to avoid interpretations that do not always coincide, it is advisable to translate it into the contracts themselves the various avatars to which we knot the birth of the right to the receipt of fees, their amount, as well as their collection, and other relevant issues.
We can help you in that task.