Tenant placement feeOwner's mandate to leaseBreach of mandate agreement
Tags
PropertyAgencyBreach of contract
legislation
Statutes Cited
N
o
n
e
–
n
o
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
w
a
s
c
i
t
e
d
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d
.
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent fulfilled its obligations under the mandate agreement","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent found Mr Wang as tenant; Communication was with husband; No lease drafted by respondent"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appellant is liable to pay tenant placement fees despite concluding lease without respondent","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant side-lined respondent; Accepted lower offer from same tenant"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant entered into an Owner's Mandate to Lease agreement with the respondent to secure a tenant for her property. The respondent found a potential tenant (Mr Wang) but the appellant rejected the initial offer and later concluded a lease agreement with the same tenant without the respondent's involvement. The respondent claimed tenant placement fees.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases