Buying a property in France through an estate agent feels familiar to buyers from the United Kingdom, the United States or Australia: an agent advertises a house, arranges a viewing, and is paid a commission when the sale completes. The French system, however, is built on rules that differ sharply from the common law world. Agency work is regulated by a 1970 statute commonly called the loi Hoguet, and the commission is governed by precise conditions: it must be provided for in a written mandate, it is payable only once the sale has been effectively concluded and recorded in a single written document, and it is not always the seller who pays. A recent ruling of the Cour de cassation, France’s highest civil court, confirms that a buyer who tries to avoid the agent’s commission by dealing directly with the seller can be ordered to compensate the agent in full — including when the buyer signed no contract with the agency at all. This article sets out how estate agency commissions work in France, when they are legally due, and the risks attached to bypassing an agent, with practical guidance for foreign buyers.
I. How Estate Agency Mandates and Commissions Work in France
Estate agency activity in France is one of the most tightly regulated intermediary professions in Europe. Before any commission question arises, it is essential to understand the two legal instruments that govern the relationship: the mandat (agency mandate) and the loi Hoguet (the statute of 2 January 1970 on property intermediary activities). A foreign buyer who is not aware of these rules may sign documents without realising what he or she is committing to, or may assume that an agent’s commission is automatically the seller’s concern.
A. The mandat: A Written Contract With Strict Formal Requirements
Under French law, an estate agent acts under a contract known as a mandat (agency mandate), which the Code civil defines in general terms: “Le mandat ou procuration est un acte par lequel une personne donne à une autre le pouvoir de faire quelque chose pour le mandant et en son nom” (a mandate or power of attorney is an act by which one person gives another the power to do something for the principal and in the principal’s name). In the property sector, this general definition is supplemented by the Loi n° 70-9 du 2 janvier 1970 (the loi Hoguet), which requires that agreements with property intermediaries be rédigées par écrit (set out in writing) and state, among other things, the conditions for determining the remuneration and the identity of the party who will bear it.
This written requirement is not a formality. If an agent acts without a valid written mandate, the consequences can be severe for the agent: in Cass. 3e civ., 11 May 2023, no. 22-11.842, the Cour de cassation upheld the dismissal of an agency’s claim for its commission where the sale had been delegated to a negotiator who did not hold the attestation préfectorale (prefectoral certificate) required by article 4 of the loi Hoguet. The Court recalled that the law’s provisions are of public order: an agent who works outside the statutory framework cannot claim the contractually agreed remuneration, nor any indemnity. For a foreign buyer, the practical lesson is that a seller’s agent who cannot produce a written mandate signed by the seller, and whose negotiator cannot prove his or her accreditation, may not be entitled to any fee at all — a point worth verifying before paying anything.
French practice distinguishes two types of mandate. Under an exclusive mandate (mandat exclusif), the seller may not instruct another agency for the same property, and the mandate must specify the actions the agent undertakes to perform. Under a non-exclusive mandate (mandat simple), the seller remains free to sell directly or through another intermediary; the agent’s commission is then due only if the agent was the effective cause of the introduction. This distinction matters when a buyer has visited a property with one agency but learns that the seller has also instructed a second. The commission may be due to the first agency only if the sale is found to have been concluded through its intercession, a question the courts resolve by examining the chronology of the visits and negotiations.
It should also be noted that the Cour de cassation has relaxed one of the traditional formal sanctions in this area. In Cass. 3e civ., 11 September 2025, no. 23-17.579 (published in the Bulletin), the Court held that the absence, on the mandate, of the place where the agent’s professional card was issued does not, by itself, invalidate the mandate, provided the agent proves that he or she actually held a valid card at the time. The Court reasoned that the provisions on the professional card pursue the objective of “réguler la profession d’agent immobilier” (regulating the profession) and protecting the principal — an objective that is not defeated where the card existed but its place of issue was omitted. The formal requirements therefore remain strict, but the courts apply them with attention to their purpose.
B. The Commission: Due Only if the Sale Is “Effectively Concluded” in a Single Written Act
The central rule on commissions is set out in article 6 of the loi Hoguet: no fee, commission or payment of any kind is due to an agent “avant qu’une des opérations visées audit article ait été effectivement conclue et constatée dans un seul acte écrit contenant l’engagement des parties” (before one of the operations covered by the article has been effectively concluded and recorded in a single written document containing the parties’ undertakings). In other words, an agent cannot lawfully receive a penny before a final, written contract exists. The article 1582 and 1583 of the Code civil complete the picture: a sale is “parfaite entre les parties” (perfect between the parties) as soon as there is agreement on the thing and the price, even before delivery and payment — but the agent’s entitlement remains governed by the specific condition of an effective, written conclusion.
This rule produces surprising results for common law buyers. A reservation fee, a verbal offer, or even a signed compromis de vente (preliminary sale agreement) that later falls through does not automatically entitle the agent to payment. In Cass. 3e civ., 8 February 2023, no. 21-25.521, the Cour de cassation held that a unilateral promise to sell (promesse unilatérale de vente) did not, on its own, open the right to the agency’s fees, since a unilateral promise contains no undertaking by the beneficiary to buy; the Court repeated the statutory formula that the sale had “pas été effectivement conclue” (not been effectively concluded) within the meaning of article 6 of the loi Hoguet, and that the agency therefore had no right to fees. The same reasoning was applied more recently in Cass. 3e civ., 26 March 2026, no. 24-13.838: where the beneficiary of a unilateral promise did not exercise the option within the agreed time, the promise became caduque (lapsed), no sale was concluded, and the agency was not entitled to its remuneration — even though a new promise over the same plot was later signed with a third-party company, which the Court found did not establish any fraudulent intent on the beneficiary’s part.
The flip side of this rule is that, once a sale is effectively concluded, the commission is due even to an agent who worked under a mere search mandate (mandat de recherche). In Cass. 3e civ., 11 September 2025, no. 23-17.579, the Court recalled the principle that “lorsqu’un agent immobilier, bénéficiaire d’un mandat de recherche d’un bien en vue de l’acquérir, fait visiter un immeuble et qu’ensuite, l’acquéreur traite directement avec le vendeur, l’opération est réputée effectivement conclue par l’entremise de cet agent immobilier” (when an estate agent holding a search mandate shows a property and the buyer subsequently deals directly with the seller, the transaction is deemed to have been effectively concluded through that agent’s intercession), entitling the agent to the agreed commission — subject only to the actual sale price and any fault of the agent. The Court did, however, censure the court of appeal for failing to examine whether the mandates’ own clauses limited in time, after their expiry, the buyer’s obligation to pay a commission when dealing directly with a seller introduced by the agent. For buyers, the message is clear: a clause de commission (commission clause) may survive the mandate’s expiry, and its exact wording must be read carefully.
II. Bypassing the Agent, Failed Sales and Pre-emption: What the Courts Decide
The second part of this guide addresses the situations in which foreign buyers most often find themselves in dispute: buying directly to avoid the fee, walking away from a transaction, and facing a local authority or tenant exercising a right of pre-emption. The case law of the Cour de cassation in recent years has significantly clarified each of these scenarios.
A. Buying Directly to Avoid the Commission: Tort Liability of the Buyer
The most important decision for foreign buyers is Cass. 3e civ., 7 May 2026, no. 24-10.637 (FS-B, published in the Bulletin). The facts are straightforward and familiar to anyone who has considered a French property: the agency Maya showed a villa to Mr and Mrs F, acting under a non-exclusive mandate from the owners which provided for a 6% commission — around €179,000 on the listed price of €2,990,000 — payable by the buyer. Five weeks after the viewing, the buyers signed a promesse de vente directly with the sellers, at the reduced price of €2,500,000, without any involvement of the agency; the direct sale was completed in August 2018. The agency sued the buyers, and the court of appeal of Aix-en-Provence ordered them to pay €150,000 in damages, corresponding to the commission they had caused the agency to lose.
The Cour de cassation upheld that award. The Court stated the governing principle in these terms: “Il résulte des articles 1200 et 1240 du code civil que le tiers à un contrat qui se rend complice de la violation par une partie de ses obligations contractuelles engage sa responsabilité délictuelle” (it follows from articles 1200 and 1240 of the Code civil that a third party to a contract who becomes an accomplice in the violation by a party of its contractual obligations incurs tort liability). It added that a buyer who is not a party to the mandate may nonetheless be liable in tort to the agent “lorsque, par son comportement fautif, il lui a fait perdre sa commission” (when, through his or her wrongful behaviour, he or she has caused the agent to lose his commission), and that this is the case “lorsque l’absence de droit à rémunération de l’agent immobilier procède de manœuvres frauduleuses” (when the absence of any right to remuneration stems from fraudulent manoeuvres). The Court pointed to the decisive evidence: the buyers knew of the agency’s right to remuneration; the promise signed five weeks after the visit, behind the agency’s back, contained a clause in which the buyers undertook “à prendre en charge la totalité des éventuelles poursuites qui pourraient être formulées par les agences immobilières” (to bear all potential claims that might be brought by the estate agencies they had contacted); and the final notarial deed made no mention of the agency’s intercession and did not reproduce that clause. Taken as a whole, the Court concluded, the buyers’ conduct revealed a deliberate intention to act in fraud of the agency’s rights — fraude (fraud) being the key finding, because simply negotiating a better price is not enough to trigger liability.
Two provisions of the Code civil underpin this ruling, and both deserve the attention of foreign buyers. Article 1240 provides that “Tout fait quelconque de l’homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer” (any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to make reparation). Article 1200 provides that “Les tiers doivent respecter la situation juridique créée par le contrat” (third parties must respect the legal situation created by the contract). The combination allows an agent — a stranger to the buyer — to claim damages directly from a buyer who deliberately orchestrates the loss of the commission.
The 2026 ruling did not arise in a vacuum. It follows a line of decisions applying the same principle since 2008, and notably Cass. 3e civ., 1 March 2023, no. 21-25.117, where a company that had signed a search mandate in 2011, then negotiated in 2017 directly with the same owners while instructing the notary that the transaction had been concluded “sans le concours d’un intermédiaire” (without the assistance of an intermediary), was held by the court of appeal to have committed “manœuvres frauduleuses destinées à éluder la rémunération” (fraudulent manoeuvres designed to evade the remuneration). The Cour de cassation quashed that decision only because the two transactions were different and the 2011 mandate could not ground a commission on the 2017 sale — not because the fraudulent conduct was innocent. The lesson for buyers is that the boundary between legitimate negotiation and fraudulent evasion is drawn by the courts on the totality of the evidence, including the chronology of contacts, the content of the drafts and the wording of the notarial deed.
In practical terms, a foreign buyer who has visited a property through an agency and wishes to pursue it directly should, at minimum, understand the risks. The commission payable by the buyer — frequently 5% to 6% of the price, and disclosed in the advertisement and the mandate — remains due if the sale is deemed concluded through the agency’s intercession, and if the buyer actively conceals the direct deal, the courts may add damages measured by the full commission, as the €150,000 award in the 2026 case shows. The safe course is to negotiate the fee openly with the agency, or to instruct a bilingual lawyer to review the mandate’s commission and exclusivity clauses before any direct contact with the seller.
B. Failed Sales, Pre-emption and Deemed Intercession: Who Pays, and When
Foreign buyers also encounter the commission rules in three other recurring situations. The first is the sale that never completes. As explained above, if the transaction is not effectively concluded in a single written act, the agent has no right to a commission: Cass. 3e civ., 8 February 2023, no. 21-25.521 and Cass. 3e civ., 26 March 2026, no. 24-13.838 are both illustrations of the strict application of article 6 of the loi Hoguet. By contrast, when a buyer abandons the transaction after a compromis de vente and the mandate contains a penalty or exclusivity clause, the agent may recover under the specific clauses provided for by the statute; and where the sale fails because a suspensive condition was not fulfilled, the commission issue may be intertwined with the buyer’s own liability, as the Court recalled in Cass. 3e civ., 20 June 2024, no. 23-12.106, in which it applied article 1304-6, paragraph 3, of the Code civil — “en cas de défaillance de la condition suspensive, l’obligation est réputée n’avoir jamais existé” (where a suspensive condition fails, the obligation is deemed never to have existed) — to quash an award of damages against a principal whose conditions had not all been fulfilled.
The second situation concerns tenants and local authorities exercising a right of pre-emption (droit de préemption). When a tenant buys the flat he or she rents, following the landlord’s notice to sell, the tenant cannot be forced to pay the agency’s commission: in Cass. 3e civ., 1 March 2023, no. 21-22.073 (published in the Bulletin), the Court held that “le droit à rémunération de l’agent immobilier, auquel un mandat de recherche a été confié, suppose une mise en relation entre le vendeur et l’acquéreur” (the agent’s right to remuneration presupposes that the agent brought the seller and buyer together), and that a tenant exercising the statutory pre-emption right, notified by the notary rather than by the agent, “ne peut se voir imposer le paiement d’une commission renchérissant le prix du bien” (cannot be required to pay a commission increasing the price of the property). The position is different where a public authority exercises its urban pre-emption right: there, the pre-emptor steps into the buyer’s shoes and must bear the commission that the buyer had agreed to pay, provided the amount and the party bearing it are stated in the parties’ engagement and in the declaration of intention to sell. This was confirmed in Cass. 3e civ., 19 December 2024, no. 23-12.985 and applied in Cass. 3e civ., 2 May 2024, no. 23-12.918, where the public land agency was ordered to pay €502,500 in commission to the agent.
The third situation is the dispute between agent and principal over the existence of the mandate itself. Foreign buyers holding property through a French SCI (société civile immobilière, a civil property company) should note that courts may infer a tacit mandate from the owner’s conduct. In Cass. 3e civ., 19 February 2026, no. 24-14.903, the Cour de cassation quashed a decision that had denied an agency’s claim for a commission against a property-owning SCI, because the court of appeal had misread the order form given by the agent to the surveyor — the document showed that the diagnostics covered the entire building, which supported the existence of a mandate. The ruling is a reminder that instructions to third parties (surveyors, notaries, advisers) can evidence an agency relationship, and that a SCI‘s managing shareholder should control who instructs professionals in the company’s name.
Conclusion
Estate agency commissions in France are governed by rules that protect the buyer as much as the agent, but which foreign buyers frequently misunderstand. Three points deserve to be retained. First, no commission is lawfully due before the sale is effectively concluded and recorded in a single written document, so an agent cannot claim payment merely for arranging a viewing or signing a unilateral promise. Second, the buyer who visits a property through an agency and then negotiates directly with the seller takes a real risk: where the manoeuvre is fraudulent, the buyer may be ordered to pay the full commission as damages, as the Cour de cassation confirmed on 7 May 2026 in a decision published in the Bulletin. Third, rights of pre-emption — whether exercised by a tenant or a public authority — operate according to their own rules on the commission, and the party substituted to the buyer may or may not bear the fee depending on how the engagement and the declaration of intention to sell were drafted.
For a buyer based abroad, the practical steps are to obtain and read the mandate and the commission clause before any viewing, to have the compromis de vente (preliminary sale agreement) reviewed before signature, to keep a record of all contacts with agencies and sellers, and to be transparent about any intention to negotiate directly. Tax consequences of the purchase — including the transfer duties collected by the notaire and, for non-residents, the annual property taxes and possible capital gains tax on a future resale — are signalled here without constituting tax advice; each situation should be reviewed with a professional. The team at Kohen Avocats, English-speaking real estate lawyers in Paris, regularly assists foreign buyers and owners with estate agency disputes, the review of sale documents and litigation before the French courts. For more on the pitfalls of the preliminary stage of a purchase, see our guide to French property transactions and the compromis de vente.