The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling requiring two companies, Solidarity Real Estate Brokerage and Development, to pay an amount of 322,000 dirhams, in favor of a woman who contracted with them to buy an apartment, and they breached their commitment after paying their installments.
The court decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration, explaining that the ruling did not respond to the defendant's defense, as it was just a real estate broker, and that the installments it received were for the account of the other defendant - the owner of the project.
In detail, a woman filed a lawsuit against two companies: the first is real estate marketing, and the second is the owner of a real estate project, demanding that they be obliged to jointly pay her an amount of 322 thousand dirhams, and a compensation of 50 thousand dirhams with interest and expenses.
The plaintiff said that she contracted with the first defendant, a mediation company, to purchase a housing unit for a real estate project, for a total price of 485 thousand and 500 dirhams, of which she paid 176 thousand dirhams, as the first defendant in her capacity as the project marketer, and they agreed that delivery would take place on a specific date The plaintiff proceeded to pay the installments in the required manner, but the defendants did not implement what they committed to, and the project was not completed, as the damage was done.
The brokerage company paid not to accept the lawsuit against it, because it is a real estate broker that does not fail to fulfill the contract obligations, and that the payments it received were for the first defendant of the project.
The court of first instance ruled that the sale contract was canceled and obligated the defendants to pay jointly 322 thousand dirhams, together with the interest and expenses.
The defendants were not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling of the first degree, and they appealed against it, which was confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court, and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the evidence showed that the defendant, the real estate broker, had maintained since the dawn of the litigation the absence of her status in the lawsuit, according to the fact that the buyer is fully aware of being a real estate broker, in the sense that she signed the contract of sale directly with the developer, and that the premiums received The sale was on behalf of the owner of the project, and he delivered those installments, and supported this with signed signatures from the latter, except that the judgment of appeal ended with the result of the contradiction of this course, when he obliged the real estate broker to perform with the real estate developer on the basis of what was stated - without support - that she is a marketing consultant And the real estate agent for this unit T in the project, and that it received premiums for the price of the sale from the buyer - the same installments that the ruling decided that it delivered to the developer what must be reversed the judgment with the referral.