We are still sharing ideas on the role of estate agents. We have earlier discussed their role and functions in details.
This is a question I would like answer by quoting a court that was faced with a similar issue (and then you take a position on your own) ; “An agent employed by a vendor to find a purchaser is an agent in a limited sense only. He has authority to describe the property and make statements as to its value ……. but he has no implied authority to receive a deposit and no power, without express authority, to conclude a contract to grant a lease or a contract for sale. It is his duty to communicate to his principal the best offer received by him at any time before a binding contract for the sale of the property has been actually signed by the principal, unless he has been informed by his principal that such an offer is not acceptable. When a vendor merely authorizes an estate agent to sell at a stated price, he must not be taken to be authorizing the agent to do more than agree the price with an intending purchase. The making of a contract is not part of an estate agent’s business, and although on the facts of an individual case the principal may authorize him to make a contract, such an authorization is not lightly to be inferred from vague or ambiguous language”.