But for co-brokerage applications, that`s another thing – and cooperating agents can be the norm rather than the exception for business transactions. In addition, as many experienced commercial agents already recognize, the cooperating broker or referral broker may not only have much less knowledge and skill in the field of commercial real estate agents, but also contribute much less to the success of the agreement. If so, the more experienced broker, with some reason, might feel that it is not fair to spread the 50-50 commissions. Many might think that the court`s decision is too inflexible by applying a strict construction approach in the interpretation of contracts and ignoring the reality of co-brokerage agreements, i.e. that there is an implication, that each party would put its own weight. In reversing this involvement, the court left the agreement they had reached, verîtes and everything. Monopoly Realty and World Business Brokers were both experienced real estate brokers. At one point, World`s business brokers discovered commercial real estate for sale and contacted Monopoly Realty with this information. It was not a list of world business brokers; there may be nothing more than a situation where the sale of owners is cancelled. (The Tribunal`s decision is silent on this aspect of the case.) Complex commercial real estate transactions may need an experienced real estate agent to devote time and effort to sales. If a cooperating broker is involved, the co-brokerage rules must be clear from the start. While he may say the obvious, take the time to reduce, write down everything that is expected to be part of a co-brokerage agreement if you agree to share a commission with another agent. In the event of a dispute, a court cannot read unspoken language.
In this case, a real estate agent, Monopoly Realty, Inc., issued a final court judgment in a contract action that awarded 50 percent to a Monopoly Realty real estate commission. The case had an interesting twist: it is not apparent from the Florida court case that any of the parties did have a list authorizing it to put the property up for sale. Nothing in the agreement imposed a duty on the world`s business brokers to have a listing or to respond in the affirmative to an action. After providing the information that the property was for sale, World Business Brokers fulfilled the conditions of the particular business agreement. The parties were then bound by their contract. Based on subsequent written notifications, Monopoly Realty and World Business Brokers signed a co-brokerage agreement for the sale of the property. The short written agreement stipulated that the world`s business brokers received half of all commissions Monopoly Realty earned by selling the relevant real estate. As the only consideration for the deal, the world`s business brokers provided information to Monopoly Realty that the property was for sale.
The court found that the agreement was written and appeared to reflect the entire agreement between the two officers. He adds: „If the parties voluntarily state their commitment in writing, so that they give a legal obligation without any uncertainty as to the purpose or extent of their commitment, they have conclusively assumed that the whole undertaking and the scope and manner of their undertaking are contained in the writing… No other language is allowed to show what they thought or what they heard… Hanon W.