Johnson v. Krier

California Court of Appeal Oct 14, 1922 No. Civ. No. 4306.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A real estate broker is entitled to a commission upon securing a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on the vendor's terms, and this right is not defeated by the subsequent failure of the sale to close or the wife's refusal to join in the conveyance.

Issues

Whether a broker earns a commission by securing a contract of sale rather than an executed conveyance.
Whether the statute of frauds bars recovery when the commission agreement is ratified in writing after services are rendered.
Whether a broker's right to a commission is defeated by the failure of the sale to consummate or the vendor's wife's refusal to sign the contract.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is, of course, well settled that when a broker employed simply to negotiate a sale of real property has found a purchaser able, ready and willing to purchase upon the vendor’s terms, his right to the agreed commission is complete”

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment against him for $2,000, in an action to recover that amount upon a written agreement to pay the same as a commission for the sale of certain land in the county of Tulare, state of California.

The trial court found that on or about December 1, 1920, the plaintiffs, acting at the special instance and request of the defendant, sold to one Lowell M. Washburn and Virginia Washburn the real ^property described in the complaint herein; that said sale was evidenced by a written contract of sale, dated December 1, 1920, and executed by the said defendant and the said buyers, Lowell M. Washburn and Virginia Washburn. That thereupon the said defendant made, executed, and delivered to plaintiffs an agreement in words and figures as follows, said agreement being written on the back of the above-mentioned contract of sale and signed by the said defendant:

“I hereby agree to pay Johnson and Temple a commission of $2,000 for the making of the within sale.

“Dated: December 1, 1920.

“P. Krier.”

There also appears a further finding that said commission has never been paid to the plaintiffs, and judgment for the same followed.

The first contention of the appellant is that the contract between himself and the Washburns was not a sale, but a contract to sell, and that plaintiffs have not earned a commission upon a “sale” by securing merely a contract of

[332]

purchase and sale which was to ripen into an executed sale in the future. There is no merit in this contention. The agreement appearing in the record is somewhat lengthy and there seems to be no necessity of setting it out fully herein. It is entitled “Contract of Sale” and provides in part:

“This agreement, made and entered into this 1st. day of December, 1920, by and between Peter Krier and Margaret Krier, his wife, parties of the first part, and Lowell M. Washburn and Virginia Washburn, his wife, parties of the second part, Witnesseth : That the parties of the first part hereby agree to sell to the parties of the second part and the parties of the second part agree to buy that certain property situate in the County of Tulare, State of California, and more particularly described as follows, to-wit”:

Johnson v. Krier

AI Brief

LANGDON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief