Recent court decisions in France have clarified the conditions under which real estate agencies can claim their fees or obtain compensation, particularly in cases where a sale does not result in a transaction or where the buyer negotiates directly with the seller. These rulings emphasize the importance of documents such as mandates, visit vouchers, and proof of exchanges to assert an agency's rights. According to Article 6 of the Hoguet Law, the payment of fees is contingent upon the effective conclusion of a sale, but agencies may still be compensated if the fault of the principal or a third party causes them to lose their remuneration. However, this compensation is proportional to the opportunity lost and does not always equal the originally planned fees. The written act containing the commitment of the parties, to which Article 6-I, paragraph 3, of the Hoguet Law subordinates the agent's remuneration, is not necessarily an authentic act. Courts have ruled that if a unilateral sale promise is considered a sale upon fulfillment of suspensive conditions, the promisor cannot refuse to reiterate the definitive act without committing a fault. Once the suspensive conditions are lifted, the sale is deemed "perfect," and the promisor who refuses to reiterate their commitment must pay penalties stipulated in the promise to the beneficiaries without the latter needing to prove a prejudice. The agency that fulfills its mission by concluding the sale retains its right to remuneration, independently of the promisor's refusal to reiterate their commitment, provided the promise no longer contains any pending suspensive conditions and mentions the details of the mandate and the amount of the fees. A consistent jurisprudence has been retained in the matter of synallagmatic promises, where courts appear more favorable to agencies in the case of a buyer's withdrawal. It is advisable to prefer the use of this pre-contract and to anticipate contractually the renunciation of the authentic act concerning the remuneration of the advisor. The right to compensation of the agency for a sale concluded after the expiration of the mandate depends on the stipulations of that mandate, notably its penalty clause, the formalism of which it is necessary to verify, and the duration of the post-mandate prohibition. It also depends on the existence of a visit voucher allowing the establishment of the agency's mediation. In case of eviction, the agency that proves the regularity of its mandate and produces a visit voucher increases its chances of obtaining compensation. Only the mandate legally grounds the remuneration, while the visit voucher establishes that the property was actually presented and that the agency has performed a useful service. These two documents are complementary: the visit voucher attests to, links to, and demonstrates the execution of the regularly given mandate. The visit voucher constitutes an essential contractual and probative document, especially since the jurisprudence is particularly demanding regarding the characterization of a fault. It remains essential to secure a right to remuneration; otherwise, the agency risks not establishing its diligence and the fault. The form of the visit voucher counts: prefer the voucher in the form of a contract (rather than the one issued by transaction software). Through a ruling published in the bulletin, the High Court again judges that the buyer, a third party to the sale mandate, incurs delictual liability towards the agency when, through fraudulent maneuvers, it causes the agency to lose its fees. The absence of a contractual link is irrelevant once the fault is characterized. The court observes that the promise had been signed, without the agency's knowledge, only five weeks after the initial visit, that it contained a disputed clause on the recourse guarantee of agencies, while the authentic act no longer mentioned the agency's mediation or reproduced said clause. This overall behavior illuminated by the very terms of the disputed clause, translated a will to act in fraud of the agency's rights. Thus, the buyer whose faulty behavior caused the agency to lose its remuneration, through whom it was connected to the seller who mandated it, must, on the basis of delictual liability, compensate the agency for its prejudice. This jurisprudence remains constant, subject to the sovereign appreciation of the judges regarding the characterization of the fault. The condemnation presupposes the existence of fraudulent maneuvers characterizing a will to evict the agency, particularly when the buyer was aware of its intervention, had visited the property through its intermediary, then quickly concluded the sale while concealing its role. It is recommended to keep chronologically all the documents of the file: mandate, visit voucher, emails, SMS, advice, reports, and written transcripts of calls, in order to demonstrate its decisive intervention, the chronology of the exchanges, and its role in the conclusion of the sale. Once established, the chain of causality transforms the circumvention into a sanctionable fault, including against the third party who deprived the intermediary of its remuneration. Regarding the management mandate, the jurisprudence has admitted that the relative nullity could be covered by the subsequent ratification of the management acts accomplished. Thus, an irregular mandate may be subject to tacit regularization when the principal, informed or not of the irregularity, subsequently manifests its will to maintain the mandate by requesting the execution of its stipulations. Article L. 218-2 of the Consumer Code states that "the action of professionals for the services provided to consumers prescribes after two years." The Court of Appeal of Toulouse, in its ruling of March 11, 2026 (n° 25/0137), recalls that this article does not exclude that a third party to the contract may invoke the two-year prescription. The two-year prescription seems to be invocable both by the seller and the buyer (even if he is not a signatory to the mandate), since he benefits from the agency's service. The jurisprudence remaining nuanced on this point, but the decision rendered in 2026 imposes caution. To finish, check your insurance contracts and, if necessary, immediately subscribe to legal protection. Distinct from RCP, this insurance covers and accompanies you when you initiate an action to recover your right to remuneration.