Real estate brokerage: commission due even after mandate expiration
With judgment no. 9428 of 9 December 2025, the Court of Milan upheld the claim of a real estate brokerage firm, recognizing the right to a commission even where the sale was stipulated after the expiration of the mandate and with the intervention of a different intermediary. The ruling rigorously applies the principle of adequate causality pursuant to Art. 1755 of the Italian Civil Code, establishing that the right to compensation arises when the broker’s activity—even if limited to making contact or providing essential information—constitutes the indispensable antecedent for the conclusion of the deal. The Judge held that the execution of the deed of sale shortly after the mandate's expiration, and under the same economic conditions, proved the continuity of the causal link, ordering the seller to pay the full agreed fees.
In judgment no. 9428 of 9 December 2025, the Court of Milan reaffirms that a real estate broker is entitled to a commission if the deal is concluded after the mandate has expired, provided their activity was the determining factor in the transaction.
The recent judgment by the Court of Milan (no. 9428 of 9 December 2025) re-examines the right to a real estate broker’s commission (provvigione) in cases where a deal is finalized subsequent to the expiration of the engagement mandate. The ruling underscores the centrality of the causal link between the agency’s promotional activity and the finalization of the purchase, confirming that the expiration of a contract does not exempt the seller from payment if the broker’s intervention was decisive.
The Case: Sale Concluded After the Mandate Term
The case stems from a payment claim brought by a real estate brokerage company against a client who had granted an exclusive sales mandate for a villa. During the contract period, the claimant agency carried out promotional activities and provided detailed information to a potential buyer.
However, the mandate expired on 31 December 2019 without a deed of sale (rogito) being signed. Slightly more than a month later, in February 2020, the owner sold the property to the very same party initially contacted by the claimant agency, but did so with the formal assistance of a different broker.
The seller contested the payment request, arguing that the first agency’s activity had not been decisive and that the deal was concluded thanks to the autonomous intervention of the second professional.
The Legal Principle: The Causal Link
In upholding the real estate agency’s claim, the Court of Milan based its decision on the interpretation of Article 1755 of the Italian Civil Code.
The Judge clarified that the right to a commission arises when the deal is concluded "as a result of" the broker's intervention. According to cited case law, it is not necessary for the etiological link to be direct and exclusive, nor is it required for the broker to participate in all phases of the negotiation up to the signing.
Instead, it is sufficient that the activity performed constitutes the indispensable antecedent for reaching the conclusion of the contract, pursuant to the principle of "adequate causality." In other words, if the introduction of the parties by the broker triggered the process that led to the sale, the right to compensation accrues even if the parties subsequently continued negotiations independently or with other subjects.
Factual Assessment of the Negotiation's Continuity
In the case at hand, the evidence showed that the first informational contact between the buyer and the claimant agency occurred nearly a year prior to the sale. The agency had provided essential data—such as price, expenses, and commission rates—and had made itself available for a viewing.
The Tribunal deemed it irrelevant that the site visit was subsequently carried out with a second intermediary or that the sale occurred after the mandate’s expiration. Two elements were considered decisive in proving the causal link:
- The short timeframe between the expiration of the mandate (31 December 2019) and the signing of the deed of sale (6 February 2020).
- The identity of the final sale price (€1,700,000) compared to that originally proposed by the agency.
The judgment specifies that the subsequent intervention of another broker did not interrupt the causal link, as the negotiation originated from the initial contact and developed, albeit partially, during the term of the first engagement. The Court further highlighted that the seller's awareness regarding the breach of exclusivity does not affect the existence of the right to commission, which is objectively based on the effectiveness of the causal contribution.
Conclusions and Practical Implications
Judgment no. 9428/2025 of the Court of Milan confirms established case law protecting the professional activity of mediators. It establishes that attempting to evade commission payments by waiting for a mandate to expire, or by fictitiously inserting a second intermediary, does not exempt the seller from their obligations if the initial contribution of the first agency was the conditio sine qua non of the deal.
The order condemning the seller to pay the full agreed commission (equal to 4% of the sale price), plus interest and legal fees, reiterates the importance for parties to act in good faith, including during the post-contractual phase.
