Fees Charged to Seller or Buyer: What the Alur Law Really Says

A seller signs a mandate with fees at their expense, then the agent offers the buyer to shift the commission onto them to reduce notary fees. This practice, common for years, has been gradually regulated by the Alur law and its implementing texts. On the ground, the consequences are not always well understood, either by sellers or buyers.

Shifting fees during the mandate: what the Alur law has changed

Before the Alur law of 2014, nothing practically prevented a real estate agent from modifying the distribution of fees between the seller and buyer after the mandate was signed. It was common to see “seller’s fee” sales mandates transformed into “buyer’s fee” at the time of the compromise, via a search mandate signed in the process.

The Alur law and the decree of January 10, 2017, established a simple rule: the amount and the party responsible for the fees must appear on every advertisement. If the mandate provides for seller’s fees, the advertisement must display the price including these fees with the mention “seller’s fees”. Modifying this distribution mid-course without a new prior mandate exposes the agent to the risk of requalification as misleading commercial practice.

This reflects the logic of transparency imposed on professionals: the question of fees borne by the seller or buyer is not a cosmetic choice, but a contractual commitment that conditions the display, the calculation of notary fees, and even the validity of the commission.

Impact on notary fees: seller’s fee vs buyer’s fee

This is the point that motivates most shifts. When the fees are borne by the buyer, the notary fees (transfer duties) are calculated on the net seller price, that is, excluding commission. When they are borne by the seller, the notary fees are calculated on the total price, including commission.

Let’s take a concrete case. On a property sold with fees representing a significant portion of the price, the difference in transfer duties can reach several thousand euros for the buyer. This is why some notaries themselves advise switching to buyer’s fees.

The trap of a late search mandate

To operate this shift correctly, the agent must have a search mandate signed by the buyer before any negotiation. A mandate signed the day before the compromise has already been annulled by the courts, with the judge considering that the agent did not have time to actually “search” for a property on behalf of the buyer.

The Court of Cassation has repeatedly confirmed that the mandate must precede the connection. An antedated search mandate or one signed too close to the agreement of the parties undermines the entire transaction, including the agent’s right to commission.

Real estate agent’s commission: when is it actually due?

The Hoguet law establishes a strict principle, reiterated by several recent rulings from the Court of Cassation: the commission is only due if the sale is effectively concluded. A signed compromise is not sufficient if the sale does not lead to the authentic deed.

In February 2023 and then in March 2026, the 3rd civil chamber reaffirmed this position. In practical terms, this means that:

A unilateral promise or a recognition of fees signed in advance does not create a right to commission if the sale falls through before the signature at the notary’s office.
The agent must have genuinely contributed to the transaction, which excludes situations where a buyer bypasses the agency after a visit to deal directly with the seller (even if, in this case, the buyer can be held liable for complicity in a tort).
The commitment of the parties must be recorded in a single act. Fees cannot be claimed based on separate documents.

In December 2024, the Court added a clarification that directly affects the “buyer’s fee” mechanism: when a holder of the right of preemption (such as a municipality) substitutes for the initial buyer, they must bear the commission if it was provided for the buyer in the declaration of intent to alienate. A point rarely anticipated when drafting the mandate.

Display obligations in real estate advertisements

The decree of January 10, 2017, implemented under the Alur law, imposes precise display requirements on real estate agents for every advertisement, both in windows and online. The following elements must appear:

The sale price, including fees if the fees are borne by the buyer, with the percentage that these fees represent relative to the price excluding fees.
A clear mention of the party bearing the fees: “seller’s fees” or “buyer’s fees”.
The price excluding fees when the fees are borne by the buyer, to allow the buyer to distinguish between the property’s share and the commission’s share.

A failure to display exposes the agency to sanctions from the DGCCRF. On the ground, feedback varies on the actual compliance with these obligations, but inspections have intensified in recent years, especially on online advertisements where mandatory mentions were often relegated to the bottom of the page.

Net seller price and negotiation: what really matters

The debate “seller’s fee or buyer’s fee” sometimes obscures the essential point. The net seller price remains the same regardless of the distribution of fees. The seller receives the same amount, and the agent earns the same amount. Only the base for transfer duties changes for the buyer.

What deserves more attention during a transaction is the amount of the fees themselves and the ability to negotiate. Contrary to popular belief, agency fees are not regulated in France. Each agency freely sets its scale, which must simply be displayed visibly.

Before focusing on the distribution mechanism, it is therefore advisable to compare scales, verify that the mandate clearly specifies the exact amount of the commission, and ensure that the display in the advertisement corresponds to the signed mandate. An inconsistency between the mandate and the advertisement may be sufficient to challenge the agent’s commission in court.

Fees Charged to Seller or Buyer: What the Alur Law Really Says