Summary
The court entered judgment on the pleadings for a real estate broker seeking a commission under an exclusive listing agreement. It held that the agreement did not make the commission contingent on completed conveyance and that the seller’s subsequent agreement with the buyers established their readiness, willingness, and ability to perform despite provisions concerning payment and liquor-license approval. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $13,200.
Holdings
- The listing agreement did not depart from the general rule that a broker earns a commission upon producing a ready, willing, and able buyer who enters into an agreement of sale. The use of the term "consummated" did not make settlement or conveyance a precondition to earning the commission.
- The February 3, 1984, agreement estopped defendant from asserting that the buyers were unable to perform. Its provisions concerning buyer performance were not contingencies, and the liquor-license provision did not make the transaction conditional in a manner defeating plaintiff's right to a commission.
Questions Presented
- Whether the listing agreement made the broker's right to a commission contingent upon final sale and conveyance rather than upon the seller's execution of an agreement of sale.
- Whether the February 3, 1984, agreement permitted defendant to contest the buyers' readiness, willingness, and ability to perform based on its provisions concerning buyer performance and liquor-license approval.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Shumaker v. Lear, 235 Pa. Super. 509, 345 A.2d 249 (1975)(followed)
- Zitzelberger v. Salvatore, 312 Pa. 402, 458 A.2d 1021 (1983)(followed)
- Lear, 235 Pa. Super. at 513(followed)
- Sork v. Rand, 422 Pa. 512, 222 A.2d 890 (1966)(followed)
- Filsam Corp. v. Dyer, 422 F. Supp. 1126 (1976)(followed)
- Watt v. East End Car Wash, 28 Pa. D. & C.3d 208 (1982)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…