WELLS was struggling to sell some flats. He mentioned this to a neighbour, who put Wells in touch with Devani. Wells and Devani spoke over the telephone. The trial judge found that Devani told Wells that he was an estate agent, and his usual commission was 2% + VAT. Wells agreed to this, but the parties did not expressly agree upon what was to trigger the commission. Devani subsequently introduced a purchaser to Wells who bought the flats. Was there a binding contract between Wells and Devani? Lewison and McCombe L.JJ. answered “No” (Wells v Devani [2016] EWCA Civ 1106, [2017] Q.B. 959). The trial judge and Arden L.J., dissenting in the Court of Appeal, answered “Yes”. The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal. It is to be hoped that the Justices will clarify the important issues of contract law raised by these simple facts and allow the appeal.

中文翻译：

---

合同订立和默示条款

WELLS 正在努力出售一些公寓。他向邻居提到了这件事，邻居让威尔斯与德瓦尼取得了联系。威尔斯和德瓦尼通过电话交谈。初审法官发现，德瓦尼告诉威尔斯他是一名房地产经纪人，他通常的佣金是 2% + 增值税。Wells 同意这一点，但双方并未明确就触发委员会的内容达成一致。Devani 随后向购买了这些公寓的 Wells 介绍了一位买家。Wells 和 Devani 之间是否有具有约束力的合同？Lewison 和 McCombe L.JJ. 回答“不”（威尔斯 v 德瓦尼[2016] EWCA Civ 1106，[2017] QB 959）。初审法官和在上诉法院提出异议的雅顿大法官回答“是”。最高法院已批准上诉。希望大法官能够澄清这些简单事实所引发的合同法的重要问题，并允许上诉。