The recent decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Devani v Wells 1 raised issues concerning some basic aspects of the law of contract formation, indeed so basic that it is surprising that they should have required the attention of the country’s highest court. The facts, at least as found by the trial judge, could hardly have been simpler. In the course of a telephone conversation the respondent, Wells, the developer of a block of flats, appointed the appellant real estate agent, Devani, agent for the sale of seven flats that Wells had experienced difficulty in selling. Devani told Wells that his commission was 2% plus VAT but nothing was said as to when it was payable. Shortly afterwards, Devani did introduce a purchaser to whom a sale was completed but Wells refused to pay the commission of £42,000. Apart from disputing the facts as stated above, he defended Devani’s proceedings to recover that sum on two grounds. First, the agreement was not sufficiently complete to constitute a binding contract because it failed to specify the event that would trigger payment of the commission. Secondly, recovery should be denied because Devani had failed to comply with its obligations under the Estate Agents Act 1979, s.18. The latter argument was partially successful because the commission eventually recovered was reduced by one-third. However, this aspect of the case will not be considered further.