Beazell v. Kane

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 1954 No. Civ. 20110Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a real estate broker is entitled to their commission once they have procured a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase on the seller's terms, and that the seller is estopped from denying the buyer's ability to perform after accepting them.

Issues

Whether a broker is entitled to a commission when the seller accepts the buyers procured by the broker.
Whether a seller is estopped from challenging the buyers' readiness and ability to purchase after accepting them.
Whether the delivery of a check as a deposit constitutes a valid payment for the purposes of a commission agreement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The broker has earned his commission when he has performed such services as constitute the proximate and efficient cause of the sale.”

“Having accepted the buyers procured by his broker, he is estopped to deny their ability or willingness to complete the contract”

“The sale having been made by an enforceable agreement, respondent is entitled to his commission.”

MOORE, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment for $2,500 based upon defendant’s agreement to pay “$4,500 to broker named herein, or one-half of buyer’s deposit, if buyer shall be in default, but not to exceed the full amount of his commission.”

The purchasers (Mr. and Mrs. Gelber) had signed the agreement on September 21, 1951, and presented a check for $5,000 to respondent “to apply on purchase price of $100,000 for 14 unit Apartments.” The Gelbers were ready, willing and able to buy at the time; appellant accepted them as buyers, and in writing agreed “to sell ... on above terms and to pay a commission of $4500.00 to broker named herein, or one-half of buyer’s deposit, if buyer shall default, but not to exceed the full amount of his commission.” The court found also that “the said buyers did deposit with the defendant Charles H. Kane ... a check in the sum of $5,000.00, as a down payment on said purchase price . . . that said defendant accepted the check for $5,000.00 as a down payment. . . .”

[595]

At the trial, respondent contended that he should receive the total agreed commission by reason of the fact that pursuant to his employment he procured the Gelbers to sign the agreement of purchase, and appellant accepted them as purchasers and agreed to sell the property to them on the terms specified. However, inasmuch as respondent took no appeal, our consideration will be confined to the question of whether he is entitled to recover one half of the $5,000 deposited by the buyers. Although payment of the check was stopped, it is evidence of Gelbers’ liability to pay the sum.

It is the general rule that when a broker is duly employed to effect the sale of realty, he is entitled to the agreed compensation after he has procured a buyer ready, willing and able to buy on the terms prescribed in the contract of employment within the time limit.

(Phelps

Prusch,

83 Cal. 626, 628 [23 P. 1111].) The broker has earned his commission when he has performed such services as constitute the proximate and efficient cause of the sale.

(Deveraux

Beazell v. Kane

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

L. B. Williams Organization, Inc.

AI Brief