Immo terms and conditions this OK?

The Immo has given us an Offe document but there is a term clause I am querying…

“The parties, both buyer (s) and seller (s), expressly acknowledge that if the pre-contract is not settled within the aforementioned period, in particular due to the faulty default of one or other of the parties, or if the seller refuses to regularize in the event of a purchase proposal at the agreed net selling price, the Agency will be entitled to claim from the defaulting party a lump-sum compensation equal to the remuneration provided for in this purchase proposal. , considering that the Agency will have been aggrieved of its legitimate right to remuneration despite its due diligence which allowed an agreement on the thing and on the price and this in application of article 1231-5 of the civil code.”

My question: is this a standard clause? Clearly I had no input to the seller negotiating fees with the immo.

How would you see this?

I would not agree to that - I have not seen such a clause before (it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been there I just hadn’t noticed it).

The “faulty default” would need to be defined to see what is meant by this.

1 Like

That seems really weird! Are you buying Darren?

This seems really weird, especially if anyone had made their offer subject to suspensive clauses.
Where would you stand?

I really think you should get the advice of a Notaire before signing Darren. Something may have got lost in translation but looking at that it suggests, if you signed it, that you’d be giving up your right to the cooling off period and any clause suspensive you may need including! A good Notaire will help sort it out for you.

Surely if there is a clause suspensive there is no defaulting party1 - just failure to meet a pre-agreed condition that the purchase goes ahead.

Similarly if you pull out within the cooling off period you are not “defaulting”.

1] unless the CS defines work to be done by a party (typically the seller) which is not carried out.

it may not have translated well…

Les parties, tant acheteur(s) que vendeur(s), reconnaissent expressément que si l’avant contrat n’est pas régularisé dans le délai précité notamment du fait de la défaillance fautive de l’une ou de l’autre des parties, ou si le vendeur refuse de régulariser en cas de proposition d’achat au prix net vendeur convenu, l’Agence sera en droit de réclamer, à la partie défaillante, une indemnité compensatrice forfaitaire égale à la rémunération prévue à la présente proposition d’achat, compte tenu que l’Agence aura été lésée de son droit légitime à rémunération en dépit de ses diligences ayant permis un accord sur la chose et sur le prix et ce en application de l’article 1231-5 du code civil.

Frankly I don’t really want anything to do with the agent any more. They have done their work and should be hasting the seller not me. All agency fees are met by the seller anyway.

It means if one or other party doesn’t go along with the contract once it has been agreed, for a spurious reason, then whoever it is who is responsible for the deal not going through will pay the agent their fee anyway.

1 Like

Yeah. I know… Is that normal in France?

Seems crazy to me.

Ask the notaire. It is their job and they are neutral.


I wouldn’t touch the with a barge pole, what a cheek.

I am no great lover of immos but I don’t see anything too unusual in stating that if one party signs a contract and then defaults without just cause, they will be responsible for the consequential costs.
But as Véro says, why are you not asking the notaire about this?

OTOH you might think that the immobilier wants to take advantage of such a situation to get paid twice (now and when the sale eventually goes through).

Of course it might be that they’ve had their fingers burned with a sale falling through but then losing the business to another agent.

I think the keyword is défaillance fautive .
If nobody breaks their agreement then this situation won’t arise.
It appears to me that all they’re doing is protecting themselves against timewasters, as provided for by French law (et ce en application de l’article 1231-5 du code civil).
They’re not going to get paid twice for the same transaction.

1 Like

I have… Still no word yet

Well, I would agree, but from my perspective:

I haven’t signed a contract with the agent
I didn’t agree fees with the agent
I am not expected to pay the agent

Frankly it smacks of bad business for me to agree to the liability for which my scope has been non existent. The agent wants his fees regardless of the sale going through or not.

Clearly the agents needs to take some risk too.

1 Like

Blimey Véro, you need to get out more.

Most of the notaires I worked with were anything but ‘neutral’ !

Notaires are principally two things -
Govt tax collectors


What’s the latest on this? Have you signed, or have your asked for the offending paragraph/phrase to be removed. ???

Well i did as suggested. I emailed the Notaire.

Not heard back. Email communication seems to be slow

The immo is chasing their paperwork