A case between Mather an estate broker and Bowen the owner of the estate
From my own personal analysis of the case below whereby it’s all about an estate broker who is Mather and an estate owner who is Bowen, Bowen the estate broker advertises an enterprise from which he issues brochure stating that brokers and prospective tenants would be registered and including a schedule of commissions. It is this where Bowen and Mather come to sign a contract where Mather alleged that in December 1995 she called Bowen via a telephone call that she wished to bring a prospective tenant. In the prospective phone call Bowen acknowledged that Mather would receive a broker’s commission when the CRC leased the premises. It is there afterwards where we come to see Mather bringing the CRC representative to view the property and also they later completed Bowen’s client broker registration form which proved Mather as the broker. With Bowen signing the form identifying himself as the lessor, two weeks later after the trade agreement CRC submitted a written lease offer that identified Mather as broker and CRC as the prospective lessee.
This is where we come to see the big issue where Bowen rejected the lessee offer after he read the document required the lessor to pay all the commission to the broker arising out of the connections with the lessee’s offer to lease. This is where we come to see Bowen issuing an offer to the CRC by agreeing to trade the property at a lower cost without notifying Mather. By Bowen reducing the trading costs meant that the broker who was Mather could not receive any commissions. After Mather found out that the trading bill had excluded her from getting her rightful share that’s when she comes to into action against Bowen and CRC. Mather’s first case was directed against Bowen for breaching their signed contract where she alleged that the brochure and the client-broker form collectively constituted a written agreement under which Bowen owed Mather a commission.
Mather’s second cause of action alleged that CRC interfered with her economic and contractual relationship between her and Bowen. Judging the case from the rules and regulations which should be accordance to the signing of a contract which generally correspond to the agreements between private parties creating a mutual obligation enforceable to a low should not be disclosed or under closed by a third party. The basic elements required for an agreement to be legally enforceable that were used in the contract are; mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and also legality.
It is well evident that Bowen owes Mather the commission this is due to the rules that are designed in a contract. Moreover, a contract cannot be mixed by a third party recipient. This shows that the CRC has also committed a crime by interfering with the contract between the broker and the owner of the property. If the ruling is done as according to the court’s laws and guidelines Mather should receive the commissions.