Who Pays in a Brokerage Dispute? Exploring the Nuances of Commission Claims in the Superyacht World

In the rarefied world of superyachts, where astronomical sums drive transactions, commission disputes can create shockwaves. The search for the ‘silent’ party who brought a buyer, their demand for a slice of the deal, and the ensuing fallout often casts a shadow over transactions and relationships. How does the industry negotiate these choppy waters? In a sector that puts a premium on relationships, what are the legal constructs that help keep disputes in check?

Under the framework of the modern MYBA sale form, commissions are contained within their separate ecosystem. Commission agreements are stand-alone agreements, with their own rules, independent of the Sale and Purchase (S&P) contract. This architecture isolates the commissions from the buyer’s risks and asserts the primacy of the contract in event of a dispute.

Adding to this complexity is the ’effective cause’ test. A commission is usually success-based, meaning the broker needs to have been a significant influence in finalising the deal. Simply dropping a name or warming a lead generally doesn’t fulfil this criteria.

New build transactions present a different set of challenges. Shipyards are now implementing commission policies that recognise actual input and close off loopholes for baseless claims. This acts as a safeguard against unmerited commissions and keeps the focus firmly on value addition and work done.

Navigating the intertwined, turbulent currents of commission claims in the superyacht industry requires an intricate understanding of the rules of the game and a clear representation in contractual agreements. This offers parties the best form of protection against opportunistic claims and helps maintain harmony and trust within the community.