While understandable from his POV, I'm disappointed to see the guy getting paid for services not rendered, and so reinforcing his tactics.
A system where you have to pay bullies because it's cheaper and easier than defending yourself is broken.
For him personally. He complained that the double-asterisk hole acted in self-interest. Then he did the same.
one acted in self interest by effectively paying the other to go away.
your comment is acting in self-interest.
so is mine.
but you don’t really think these all the same. so what point are you actually trying to prove?
a bit different from kidnapping.
or are you saying you always do the right thing? that would be rather incredible.
To us and others it may seem to be a large sum, but to him it was definitely only a pittance of what he intended to take.
I didn't get that from the article - I read it as the broker got his full commission.
In fact, it reads as if the broker got even more than he expected, because the final sale price was 25% more.
I also think there's more to this.
In the event of no contract, winning this is basically one court visit, plus a cost order against the broker.
In the event of a contract that specifies no payment until the deal is closed with the broker's buyer, that's also going to be one court visit with a cost order against the broker.
The only reason to pay him is if the contract said "in the event of a sale" with no further qualifiers. I'm pretty certain it said something along those lines.