I then started checking the full terms and was surprised when I reached the lowest point of the offer, which said: „Commission: 7.50% of freight is withdrawn and paid directly by the charterers to the brokers.“ What is this 7.50% commission? Who are the brokers and how has the commission reached such high levels%? I immediately called my realtor to clear up the situation. He advised that he could only work the company on a specific brushing channel and the other broker demanded a full commission of 2.50%, without accepting a share or a decrease in his commission. First, I tried to explain to my broker that this is unfair, because he first offered the deal with a 5% commission, he did not mention anything about the other realtor, whereas the charterer should be close to him. Then I tried to negotiate a lower Commission, but he did not accept. He noted that, as the other broker was not willing to accept a lower share, he was not prepared to take a less favourable position. Finally, I tried to increase the freight, but the charterer was not ready to increase the same thing and he also held me responsible for „back-trading“. After all this, the deal failed because the brokers did not accept a reduction in their commissions and the charterers did not agree to pay a higher cargo! 5.4.3. Taxes payable for the sale and sale of ships are due and payable on the gross purchase price or construction costs, including, if applicable, any additional costs and the costs of mobilization, demobilization and commissioning (whether or not provided for by the commission clause or other agreement). Another theory of recovery, which should be considered in a transaction with brokerage commissions, particularly in situations where a charter party is expected to be terminated, is the right to unlawful interference in the contract.
The elements of this plea are: (1) the existence of a valid contract between the applicant and a third party (4); (2) knowledge of the contract by the disruptive party; (3) the deliberate acquisition of the violation of the third party without justification and finally; (4) a violation and damages. In assessing the merits of such claims, it is essential to determine whether the unauthorized conduct occurred before the end of the charterer, as the broker`s contractual right to a commission would end. As noted above, one of the critical elements of the unlawful act (the existence of a contract) would be lacking. From a practical point of view, a broker should be aware of the interference, say of another broker, of a charter that could soon be repealed, but which has not yet been officially terminated. Brokers who are faced with cancellations of charters and who get no comfort in the simple language of the applicable commission clause can nevertheless remedy the violation of the tacit confederation of good faith and fair trade in all contracts. The treaty prohibits any contracting party from doing anything that destroys or violates the other party`s right to the benefit of the contract. It should be noted that the burden of proof of the violation of this federation is difficult because the federal state does not add or act for the purpose of undermining a party`s right to protect its own interests. For example, a good faith owner who negotiates a transaction with a resilient charterer does not violate the Confederation, although that act deprives a broker of a commission.