Contract
Barton and others v Morris and another [2023] UKSC 3, [2023] All ER (D) 58 (Jan)
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal which arose out of the liquidation of the fourth respondent company (Foxpace). The first respondent (B) and Foxpace had orally agreed that an introduction fee of £1.2m would be paid to B if a purchaser he introduced bought Foxpace’s property in London for £6.5m. The property was later sold for £6m and B sought reasonable remuneration for his services. The High Court ruled that he was not entitled to any payment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed his appeal, having held that Foxpace would be unjustly enriched if it took the benefit of the introduction without paying B a reasonable fee, and that the same result might have been achieved by the implication of a term into the contract that a reasonable fee would be paid if the purchaser had bought the property for less than £6.5m. The court, by a majority, held that the case was not a typical estate agent/vendor relationship, that there was no express
