Combined Property Consultants Pty Ltd v Mitchell

Combined Property Consultants Pty Ltd (CPC) was engaged by Mitchell to sell Mitchell’s property. A dispute arose over the terms of their agreement, including whether the agreement was exclusive or sole. CPC claimed commission for a sale that was not completed. The court had to determine if the written agreement reflected the actual contract between the parties, the proper interpretation of certain terms, and whether the agency contract was frustrated when the sale did not proceed.

The court found that the parties had a clear agreement for a "sole" agency rather than "exclusive," despite the written agreement stating "exclusive." The court considered the parol evidence rule but allowed rectification to correct the mistake. The court also addressed the interpretation of the option agreement and whether exercising the option constituted a "purchase" under the agency contract, concluding that it did not. Additionally, the court ruled that the term "introduced" in the agency contract did not extend to bringing the purchaser into contact with the vendor during the agency period. Finally, the court determined that the agency contract was frustrated when the sale did not proceed following the release of the option.

The court rectified the written agreement to reflect the parties' true intention of a "sole" agency. It found that the exercise of the option did not constitute a purchase under the agency contract, and therefore no commission was payable. The court also ruled that the purchaser was not "introduced" to the vendor during the agency period. Finally, the court determined that the agency contract was frustrated when the sale did not proceed following the release of the option. The court's decision resulted in CPC not being entitled to commission and Mitchell not being liable for the amount claimed.