Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a financial brokerage agreement created an exclusive agency rather than an exclusive right to sell. Because the agreement did not expressly require UBS Real Estate Securities to pay a commission when it independently transferred distressed student loan assets to a Swiss National Bank fund, the transfer did not trigger a success fee. The court reversed the Appellate Division and directed dismissal of the complaint against UBS Real Estate Securities.
Holdings
- The agreement created an exclusive agency, not an exclusive right to sell. A contract establishes an exclusive right to sell only when it clearly and expressly provides that a commission is due upon a sale by the owner or excludes the owner from independently negotiating a sale.
- The provision granting Morpheus the exclusive right to solicit counterparties did not impose a corollary duty on UBS to wait before independently transferring the assets.
- The transfer of the student-loan assets to the stabilization fund did not trigger UBS's obligation to pay Morpheus a success fee.
- The complaint was properly dismissed because its causes of action were conclusively contradicted by the language of the parties' contract.
Questions Presented
- Whether the brokerage agreement created an exclusive right to sell, requiring UBS to pay a commission when UBS itself transferred the assets without a buyer procured by Morpheus.
- Whether the agreement's grant of an exclusive right to solicit counterparties imposed a duty on UBS to wait and give Morpheus an opportunity to solicit a buyer before transferring the assets.
- Whether the transfer to the Swiss National Bank stabilization fund triggered UBS's contractual obligation to pay a success fee.
- Whether the complaint was conclusively contradicted by the contract and therefore subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (12)
- Far Realty Assoc. Inc. v. RKO Del. Corp., 34 A.D.3d 261, 262 (1st Dep't 2006)(followed)
- Harvard Assoc. v. Hayt, Hayt & Landau, 264 A.D.2d 814, 815 (2d Dep't 1999)(followed)
- Solid Waste Inst. v. Sanitary Disposal, 120 A.D.2d 915, 916 (3d Dep't 1986)(followed)
- Hammond, Kennedy & Co. v. Servinational, Inc., 48 A.D.2d 394, 396-397 (1st Dep't 1975)(followed)
- Levy v. Isaacs, 285 App. Div. 1170, 1170-1171 (2d Dep't 1955), decision amended, 286 App. Div. 855 (2d Dep't 1955)(followed)
- Werner v. Eurich, 263 App. Div. 744, 744 (2d Dep't 1941)(followed)
- Slattery v. Cothran, 210 App. Div. 581, 583 (4th Dep't 1924)(followed)
- Ackman v. Toren, Inc., 6 N.Y.2d 720 (1959), aff'g 6 A.D.2d 427 (1st Dep't 1958)(followed)
- McClave v. Paine, 49 N.Y. 561, 561 (1872)(followed)
- Moses v. Bierling, 31 N.Y. 462, 462 (1865)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…