The intended property purchase is not carried out as planned. Nevertheless you receive a claim from the brokerage. The mere statement “I did not get the property” does not by itself explain whether a legally effective transaction never came into being, whether an existing contract was later not performed, or whether a different agreement is being relied upon.
Put the actual sequence of events before the invoice
Gather the brokerage agreement, purchase offer, declarations of acceptance, conditions and correspondence about the further course. What is certainly known, what remains legally unclear? The heading failed can summarise very different proceedings.
Please ask the legal adviser to assess the contractual status and to attribute the claim precisely to that sequence of events. A later notice about missing financing is not in itself the complete explanation of all previously made commitments. The article does not decide any specific financing contingency.
Distinguish legal effectiveness from later performance
§7 MaklerG links the emergence of the commission claim to the legal effectiveness of the mediated transaction. The provision also governs the lapse in the case of established non-performance for reasons not attributable to the client; for the default in performance by the third party it contains an additional evidentiary framework. [PROVISION]
Whether your case meets these requirements must be examined separately. The overview promises neither a routinely forfeited commission nor a blanket obligation to pay in every aborted process. Responsibility, content of the declarations and reasons for non-performance are not clarified by the invoice heading.
A different label does not create a different legal basis
§15 MaklerG contains a limited framework for special agreements in the absence of an attributable mediation success. [SONDERFALL] If compensation or reimbursement of expenses is demanded instead of commission, the specific agreement with its asserted triggering event must therefore be examined. Further consumer protection provisions must be taken into account individually.
Our editorial recommendation: Ask for the stated basis and the comprehensible calculation. Collect the response for the legal advice. Issuing your own general declaration that any expense is irrelevant because the purchase did not take place would be as premature as accepting any demanded flat fee.
Fictitious case: A joint contract termination is understood as an automatic fee solution
A buyer and the selling side want to end their transaction. The buyer assumes their agreement also settles any brokerage claim. The corresponding agreement and the prior legal effectiveness have not yet been examined in this regard.
He therefore presents the intended solution for examination of possible further claims before its declaration. The example does not say that a claim remains. It shows why two parties should not unexaminedly assume that their own settlement simultaneously answers every legal relationship with another party.
Handle claims in good time and without premature acknowledgment
Record payment deadlines and the receipt of further letters and obtain individual advice promptly in the case of a significant or disputed claim. This text is not a model objection and not an authorisation to pay. A mere inquiry does not automatically suspend a deadline either.
Your outcome should link the asserted claim with contractual basis, actual course and concrete trigger. Only this allocation permits an objective assessment of the invoice. The failed property acquisition is the occasion for the examination, not already its complete result.