Blocksidge v. Broadway Sixth Co.

California Court of Appeal Sep 13, 1962 No. Civ. 25959Published

Before: Herndon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's findings that the brokers performed their contractual obligations and that the defendants failed to prove a lack of consideration.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings of fact regarding the brokers' performance and the existence of consideration were supported by the evidence.
Whether the defendants were entitled to a reversal of the judgment based on the adequacy of the brokers' services.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When there is substantial evidence or any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support a trial court’s findings, appellate courts will not make determinations of factual issues contrary to those made by the trier of the facts.”

“the law ordinarily does not require a weighing of the quantum of benefit received by a promisor or of the detriment suffered by a promisee in determining whether sufficient consideration exists to support a contract”

HERNDON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered against defendants and for plaintiff as the assignee for collection of two real estate brokers who are the real parties in interest. The action as tried was one seeking to recover the balance due from defendants under separate, but identical, written agreements entered into between defendants and the two brokers.

The agreements were in the form of letters and were prepared by defendants’ attorney. The first two, dated January 14, 1958, are identical except as to the name of the broker. After describing the parties, the property involved, and certain analyses and surveys thereof that had been made by the brokers, they provide as follows:

[630]

“The undersigned desires to retain you to assist in the leasing of space in said building, if title is conveyed to the undersigned pursuant to said bid. The undersigned shall pay to you or your personal representative the sum of $40,000, if, as and when title is vested in us or our nominee, as an irrevocable advance against any leasing commissions which you may earn on leases of space in the Story Building procured by you and accepted by us during the period ending December 31, 1960, and

in consideration of your services in the analyses and surveys aforesaid.

You shall be, entitled to retain said sum

irrespective of the consummation of any leases through your efforts, and your death or disability prior to the expiration of said period shall not entitle us to any refund.

“You acknowledge that you have no claims with reference to the Story Building of any character against the undersigned, or their successors, for any acts or occurrences to the date hereof,

and if for any reason, title to said building is not vested in us, we shall have no obligation to you under this agreement or otherwise with reference to the Story Building.

“Please sign below to evidence your acceptance of this agreement.” (Emphasis added.)

In each instance the documents were signed by defendants and the respective broker to whom they were addressed. In identical letter forms bearing the date of March 4, 1958, each broker was advised concerning the prior agreements of January 14, 1958, as follows:

Blocksidge v. Broadway Sixth Co.

AI Brief

HERNDON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief