Two estate agents, in promoting a property, made promise for a gift of cash to a potential purchaser. However, they denied having made such a promise after the transaction was completed, and were sanctioned by the Disciplinary Committee.

The two agents were marketing properties at a first sale site and made the promise to a potential purchaser that, if the purchaser should buy a flat in that development through the estate agency company they worked for (Company A), then the purchaser would be entitled to a 5% discount, provided by the developer, off the listed price. Then, later, another estate agency company (Company B) approached the same purchaser and offered a cash gift of over $70,000. In the face of such competition the two agents indicated to the purchaser that, apart from the discount mentioned above, their company would also provide a cash gift equivalent in value to what the other company has offered. Upon hearing this the purchaser, as the client of the two agents, then proceeded to the developer's office for the necessary procedures. As the Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase was being signed, the purchaser asked one of the agents for the cash gift. The agent said that he had to wait until approval was obtained from the appropriate department in the company, and promised that payment would be effected after the formal Agreement for Sale and Purchase. Then, after the purchaser had signed the formal Agreement, the two agents flatly denied ever having made such a promise.

The purchaser lodged a complaint with the EAA and also took his case to the Small Claims Tribunal which, upon evidence provided by Company B, believed that Company A had indeed made the promise of a gift of cash and ruled in favour of the purchaser. However, as the Tribunal only deals with claims not exceeding $50,000, Company A was ordered to make a compensation of $50,000 to the purchaser and pay court charges. The case was considered at an Inquiry Hearing of the Disciplinary Committee which found that both the marketing tactics and the integrity of the two licensees were at fault and detrimental to the reputation of the profession. A suspension order was handed down by the Committee.