Cleaning agency policy

amother

Plum

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 1:29 pm

Op here yes I paid her in full on Friday plus transportation . I specifically asked the cleaning woman if I should call the agency since I want her Fri. She said no its fine she will come( maybe my mistake)
The agency never ever told me they collect half the amount from me on Friday she called me today and tells me she is coming to pick up $ I was never told about what I do? I guess I will call a Rav ty

ra_mom

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 1:34 pm

amother wrote:

Tell them to collect from the worker since they didn't tell you in advance., That is also a crazy commission. Normally it is two dollars for the agency. The lady gets ten and you pay twelve.

This. Either they make it clear to you and the cleaning woman ahead of time that you pay her $5 per hour and pay the agency the other $5 per hour, or else they need to have an arrangement ahead of time with the cleaning woman that she gives then part of her pay.

Whenever I have used an agency, the cleaning woman had to pay the agency for the refer all fee. The reason she pays it is because she wants to be able to go back to the agency for more referrals, which she constantly needs as jobs come and go.

Amarante

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 1:42 pm

amother wrote:

to.

There is something more to this than the facts you have stated as is often the case when people talk about specific legal decisions.

I can only speculate that there was some sort of finder's fee that had been discussed between the two parties because the commission is always paid by the seller so if the agent had a relationship with the seller, he would have collected from the seller regardless if who it was sold to.

A buyers agent is something completely different as it is an express agreement to use services if a broker as a user for a specific period of time. In exchange, the buyer theoretically gets an agent who represents buyers interests because agents actually both are working for the seller.

But absent some kind of understanding, a real estate agent can't collect on a property he doesn't represent because he randomly alerts someone he has no relationship with that it is on the market.

I would be interested in reading the actual decision because I am almost certain that the facts indicated ther was some kind of understanding becausea decision based on the facts presented makes no legal sense.

amother

Violet

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 2:15 pm

Amarante wrote:

It makes perfect legal sense because it is based on quantum meruit which is a reasonable sum of money for services when there is no legally enforceable contact.

Buyer went behind the realtor's back using your logic. I am glad the court didn't agree. It is sleazy no matter how you look at it.

BTW the buyer probably could have paid the commission in annual intervals over ten years if he signed an agreement like a decent person. The court accelerated his commissions to a lump sum costing him hundreds of thousands in the time value of money.

Here I think the agency has the same claim of quantum meruit. The agency also might be entitled to $5 an hour. The homeowner unreasonably paid the worker directly.

amother

Violet

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 2:18 pm

Amarante wrote:

I find it odd that so much of Jewish practice is based on very fine readings of what is permitted and not permitted and yet when someone like myself uses the same kind of reasoning, you call it a "strange sense of morality" and insult the person. What if I insulted someone who had an interpretation of what constituted "heating" on Shabbos which also often involves very intricate analysis and differing interpretations of what is permitted.

FTR I also call it a strange sense of morality when frum people think it is OK to steal from g0ys because of fine readings of the Torah.

Amarante

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 3:06 pm

Why all these anonymous posters with elevated morality.

I don't consider it to be stealing as the OP paid in full. If she had negotiated a lower rate to exclude the agency, my analysis would be different. She had no intent to defraud anyone. The cleaning woman is the one with both a moral and legal obligation to pay the commission since she is the one who benefitted by remaining silent and keeping the money m

And I am completely familiar with quantum meritut but it doesn't exist on the facts stated in which a random conversation occurred. It is a judicial method of determining consideration if a so-called "perfect" contract had not been created but there still needs to be some basis for the court to determine there was a contract. I can't just paint your fence without any kind of discussion and then collect payment.

Again, there must have been an agreement in which some kind of finders fee arrangement was once discussed but formal paperwork not executed. On that basis a court would step in and determine what the fee should be based on the theory of quantum merit.

And however you spell it, the G word is offensive and not used by "moral" people :-)

amother

Violet

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 3:21 pm

Amarante wrote:

You are wrong. There was no express agreement either in writing or verbally. The realtors told the buyer about the property. They never showed him the property. He acted on it by contacting the seller. He thought he was slick.

Your incorrect reasoning said that it is OK for him to do that because he didn't have an agreement with them. The court found otherwise.

FTR the plaintiff did not claim there was a finders fee arrangement. It was an unsolicited sale call that resulted in the purchaser contacting the owner directly.

Frankly, OP should ask her LOR like I suggested originally because she caused the agency not to get paid by going behind their back. I think it not a very nice thing to do.

Amarante

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 3:33 pm

amother wrote:

I'm obviously at a disadvantage since I don't have the facts and in suspect there is more to the story than a random conversation in which a person for no reason was told about a property.

Since custom and practice is that a buyer doesn't pay commission, there would be something more for a court to decide that money was owed by a buyer from the sale. Typically, the seller is responsible for payments to both the agents for buyer and seller so why what was happening on that end.

Provide a link to the ruling and I will read it but in my experience people misconstrue legal decisions by leaving out salient facts. Like the other thread in which a judge supposed said someone with cerebral palsy had no value as a human being.

But in terms of the OP, it is my opinions hat the cleaning woman is the woman who should be paying the agency since she knowingly withheld the money whereas the OP did not knowingly or intend to cheat the agency so she is neither legally or morally in the wrong.

amother

Violet

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 4:04 pm

Amarante wrote:

It is my experience those with a little knowledge think they are experts even when it is not their field. It is clear real estate is not your field because the things you say sound right out of a textbook. It is not as black and white in real life. I read the decision and the record and I am not misreading it. It was decided not to appeal. I was asked my opinion on this decision which is why I read the record also. I don't know if this decision was published so I am unable to provide you "a link".

The conversation wasn't random as I keep telling you. The realtor tried to solicit business by calling a wealthy individual to let him know a property was for sale and a great idea to develope it. There was nothing random about it. There was no agreement in the record nor was one cited in the decision as I keep telling you.

As for as the original question in this thread - AYLOR! A reasonable person would have realized that the agency shouldn't be cut out in the transaction. OP hurt the agency.

WhatFor

Sun, Nov 08 2015, 8:18 pm

amother wrote:

Can you cite to the decision? I'm curious as well. Thanks.

self-actualization

Mon, Nov 09 2015, 12:39 pm

You need to book through the agency every time, unless you make a specific deal with the agency such as: after 6 months I am going to stop paying commissions, or, I will pay a large upfront commission and that's it.

You can NOT trust the worker to pay the agency instead of you. The workers are too poor and they just won't pay the agency themselves. I'm not blaming them, because they are really strapped. That's why the agency is relying on you.

Aside from acting "cheap" and possibly acting against halacha, the other problem that you face by going behind the back of the agency is that next week, when your cleaner doesn't show up, the agency is not going to send you someone new. Or they will send you their worst worker.