CENTRAL AGENTS

As well as working under their own terms and conditions, brokers usually prefer to work under a Central Agency Agreement – under which they have the exclusive right to market the yacht. This gives them peace of mind and will encourage them to do their best to sell the vessel, safe in knowledge that – unless the vessel fails to sell at all – they will see a return on their investment.

As a prospective buyer, you should ensure that the broker you are dealing with is indeed the Central Agent: otherwise an unnecessary and inefficient chain of communications can be set up which makes negotiating that much more complex, lengthy and uncertain. MYBA, for example, produces its own approved, standard Central Agency Agreement which is reasonably fair if somewhat simplistic.

The exclusivity term of the Central Agency Agreement is a matter of negotiation, but the broker should be afforded a sufficient chance to market and sell the vessel – keeping in mind the yacht show calendar, the vessel’s usual mooring location and the time needed to produce promotional materials, videos, etc.

Crucially, under such agreement the broker is usually entitled to commission where the yacht is sold during the period of its currency – even if the sale had nothing to do with the broker’s efforts. Perhaps the seller has a business associate looking to buy her – or a regular charterer is looking to make her his own: if these are realistic possibilities, the agreement will need amending.

Alternatively, the seller may prefer to appoint more than one central agent under a Joint Central Agency Agreement, with multiple agents deciding between themselves how the vessel is to be marketed and the commission split. Attention must still be paid to what is to happen where a sale occurs regardless of the joint central agents’ efforts.

Disputes between sellers and brokers most often occur because of the vagueness of, or ambiguities contained in, the broker's instructions.

Brokers may also seek to regulate the relationship between them and their clients with ‘standard’ terms and conditions. Any prospective client would be urged to examine these carefully, and take advice, to ensure that there are no misunderstandings about the scope of the services being supplied – and the limitation and exclusions which may apply.

Any clauses seeking to exclude or limit liability will be subject to laws governing unfair contract terms – and so cannot necessarily be taken at face value. Further, in the unlikely event that the seller is an individual, rather than a company, the terms must usually comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which seeks to ensure that contracts within its remit are, broadly, as fair as possible.

In providing brokerage services, a legal agent/principal relationship is established. This means that the relationship between seller and broker is governed not only by the written arrangements made in the brokerage agreement, but by the unwritten (as far as the parties are concerned) law of agency. Well understood by lawyers, but not necessarily by the parties, there can be obligations owed by broker to the seller, and vice versa, of which one or neither is completely unaware.

INTERMEDIARY BROKERS

Sometimes, central agents just don’t have sufficient market penetration. Perhaps they just don’t have the necessary geographic or cultural reach, or it’s just that their little black book doesn’t have the right numbers in it. They may use other brokers (known as intermediary or sub brokers) and/or other parties to reach the ear of the prospective client. While this should be avoided, for the reasons touched on above, sometimes it’s unavoidable if an opportunity isn’t to be lost.

While intermediary brokers have no contractual connection with the seller, they nevertheless have certain rights and obligations.

The law recognises the intermediary broker’s right (unless other arrangements have been agreed between them and the Central Agent) to be paid a commission – but only where such broker introduces the buyer to the purchase opportunity, and – crucially – was thereby the, or an, “effective cause” of the sale.

In determining where an intermediary broker’s’ actions formed an effective cause rather than simply a cause, the question is whether the party actually brought about the relationship between the buyer and seller. There is no clear set of principles which can be distilled from the many legal cases on this subject. Whether such broker is the effective cause simply depends on the facts of each case – but such an effective cause will be very readily implied by the courts.

The intermediary broker does not have to complete or even take part in the negotiations which do take place, nor arrange any meeting, nor persuade either party to enter into the contract. Commission will still be due where the price agreed is lower than that originally put forward.

REASONABLE CARE & SKILL

Under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982, the broker will have an automatic legal duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing its services - subject to any express terms of the brokerage agreement.

What constitutes reasonable care and skill is what one would expect of a competent yacht broker. In court, independent and authoritative expert testimony would likely be sought to establish what such expectations are and whether these have been met.

Intermediary brokers also owe sellers a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill – even in the absence of a direct contractual link.

FIDUCIARY DUTIES

As agents, brokers owe their principals other particular legal duties, including acting in good faith, and not acting in its own interest (or that of a third party) without the principal's consent. It’s no excuse that the principal would have consented had he or she been asked.

COMMISSION

There can be confusion regarding the extent to which broker must disclose third party commissions paid, by the broker, in connection with each sale.

The courts have accepted that – in the commercial shipping world at least – market practice encompasses the paying of commission, by brokers, to intermediary brokers and other third parties, as part of the broker’s own outgoings. The broker is not required to disclose such costs to his principal unless specifically requested.

But (and it’s a big but!) brokers must ensure that their actions do not lead to anyone breaching the provisions of the Bribery Act. It is easy to foresee circumstances under which a captain of the yacht for sale receives a commission without the consent of his employer – thereby committing a criminal offence to which the broker is then an accessory.

BROKER AS STAKEHOLDER

Under the MYBA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), the seller’s broker normally acts as ‘stakeholder’ – holding the deposit. This is typical of many such standard sale agreements. The broker must distribute the funds upon the occurrence of certain events listed in the agreement – and must not follow the instructions of other parties including the broker’s own client.

Surprisingly, there’s nothing in the MYBA MOA obliging the broker to keep funds in a separate client account, nor pay interest on the cash it holds.

PAYING THE BROKER

Under the MYBA sale form, the seller must pay the commission directly to the broker(s) identified in the MOA, on successful completion of the sale, or where the sale is not finalised but the seller and the buyer agree a sale within two years of the sale agreement. The broker is made a party to the agreement for certain purposes – giving it the right to enforce those clauses relating to commission.

Where the broker isn’t party to the sale agreement, a right of enforcement may be provided by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act of 1999, which grants a third party the right to enforce a contract under certain circumstances. What practical use this would be where the seller is an owning company which has just sold its only asset and distributed the resulting funds is another matter.

COMPLAINTS

Where owners are dissatisfied with a broker’s behaviour, it is often worth seeing if matters can be brought to satisfactory conclusion without the need for litigation. Brokers are often members of associations which may have their own codes of conduct, and may have a complaints mechanism. Professional indemnity insurance may be required, and a conversation with underwriters may focus minds especially where there is a substantial policy excess.