The fact that property is placed in the hands of a broker to sell shall not prevent the owner from selling, unless otherwise agreed. The broker's commissions are earned when, during the agency, he finds a purchaser who is ready, able, and willing to buy and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner.
(Civil Code 1895, § 3015; Civil Code 1910, § 3587; Code 1933, § 4-213.)
Law reviews.- For article, "Compensation of the Georgia Real Estate Broker," see 6 Ga. L. Rev. 375 (1972). For annual survey article discussing real property law, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 441 (1999). For annual survey of real property law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 331 (2005). For comment discussing a broker's entitlement to a commission where buyer defaults in light of Ellsworth-Dabbs, Inc. v. Johnson, 50 N.J. 528, 236 A.2d 843 (1967), see 19 Mercer L. Rev. 460 (1968).
JUDICIAL DECISIONSANALYSIS
General Consideration
"Owner" defined.
- "Owner," as used in this section, is construed to mean "owners," if the property belongs to joint owners. Stallworth v. Martin-Ozburn Realty Co., 17 Ga. App. 689, 87 S.E. 1094 (1916).
Cited in Latimer v. Gifford, 37 Ga. App. 1, 138 S.E. 859 (1927); Fox v. Von Kamp, 52 Ga. App. 776, 184 S.E. 645 (1936); Williamson-Inman & Co. v. Thompson, 53 Ga. App. 821, 187 S.E. 194 (1936); Irish v. Fisher, 74 Ga. App. 631, 40 S.E.2d 588 (1946); Foster v. Sikes, 202 Ga. 122, 42 S.E.2d 441 (1947); Waring v. John J. Thompson & Co., 76 Ga. App. 494, 46 S.E.2d 364 (1948); Thompson v. Hudson, 76 Ga. App. 807, 47 S.E.2d 112 (1948); McNabb v. Hardeman, 77 Ga. App. 451, 49 S.E.2d 194 (1948); Selton v. Dowling, 79 Ga. App. 690, 54 S.E.2d 763 (1949); Rothberg v. Manhattan Coil Co., 84 Ga. App. 528, 66 S.E.2d 390 (1951); Weldon v. Lashley, 214 Ga. 99, 103 S.E.2d 385 (1958); Meza v. Van Deventer, 97 Ga. App. 738, 104 S.E.2d 478 (1958); National City Bank v. Graham, 105 Ga. App. 498, 125 S.E.2d 223 (1962); Pendley v. Jessee, 134 Ga. App. 138, 213 S.E.2d 496 (1975); Ranck & Keefe, Inc. v. First Richmond Corp., 138 Ga. App. 542, 226 S.E.2d 795 (1976); Martin v. Hendrix, Waddell, Martin & Co., 140 Ga. App. 557, 231 S.E.2d 526 (1976); Dorsey-Alston Co. v. Bohn, 141 Ga. App. 894, 234 S.E.2d 716 (1977); Newman v. James M. Vardaman & Co., 162 Ga. App. 878, 293 S.E.2d 462 (1982); Glenn v. Fourteen W. Realty, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 549, 313 S.E.2d 730 (1984); Barton & Ludwig, Inc. v. Thompson, 170 Ga. App. 187, 316 S.E.2d 786 (1984); Foshee v. Harris, 170 Ga. App. 394, 317 S.E.2d 548 (1984); Coldwell Banker Com. Group, Inc. v. Nodvin, 598 F. Supp. 853 (N.D. Ga. 1984); Prestige Realty Co. v. CM & W Constr. Co., 177 Ga. App. 843, 341 S.E.2d 321 (1986); Batchelor v. Tucker, 184 Ga. App. 761, 362 S.E.2d 493 (1987).
Owner's Right to Sell
Conferring the exclusive right to sell excludes sales by the owners themselves. Barrington v. Dunwody, 35 Ga. App. 517, 134 S.E. 130, cert. denied, 35 Ga. App. 807 (1926).
Owner may sell despite appointment of agent.
- Under this section, if there is no express provision to the contrary, the appointment of a real estate agent to sell property does not deprive the owner of the right of selling the property personally without liability to account to the real estate agent for the commission. Humphries & Jackson v. Smith, 5 Ga. App. 340, 63 S.E. 248 (1908); Ford & Pruett v. Thomason, 11 Ga. App. 359, 75 S.E. 269 (1912); Floyd & Lee v. Boyd, 16 Ga. App. 43, 84 S.E. 494 (1915); City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Orr, 39 Ga. App. 217, 146 S.E. 795 (1929).
If a property owner has authorized a broker to procure a purchaser for the owner's property but has not given the owner an "exclusive agency" to do so, the owner remains free to sell the property personally or to sell it through another broker. Kraft Land Servs., Inc. v. Hart Co., 165 Ga. App. 358, 300 S.E.2d 186 (1983).
Exclusive agent.
- Though the owner appoints a real estate broker the owner's exclusive agent to sell designated property, in the absence of a contractual provision to the contrary, the owner may sell the owner's own property without incurring liability to the broker for commissions. Bradbury v. Morrison, 93 Ga. App. 704, 92 S.E.2d 607 (1956).
Effect of irrevocable appointment for fixed period.
- Owner of real estate, by employing an agent to effect the sale thereof under a written contract under seal, does not preclude the owner from selling the property, provided the owner makes the sale in the utmost good faith, without any purpose to defraud the agent of the agent's right to commissions under the contract. The fact that the contract provides that the agency created thereby is irrevocable for the term of three months is not of itself sufficient to prevent the owner from personally selling the property within that time, if the owner does so to a person with whom the agent has had no prior negotiations relating to the sale or purchase of the property. Moore v. May, 10 Ga. App. 198, 73 S.E. 29 (1911).
Effect of agreement.
- Provision of O.C.G.A. § 10-6-32 that the broker's commissions are earned when the broker procures a buyer ready, willing, and able to buy on terms stipulated by the owner did not apply when the agreement established that the owner was liable for payment of a commission if the property was sold during the term of the agreement, even if the sale was accomplished without the broker's involvement. OTI Shelf, Inc. v. Schair & Assocs., 238 Ga. App. 12, 517 S.E.2d 542 (1999).
Sale may be to broker's prospect if negotiations have ended.
- If the first broker has been unable to sell the prospective purchaser and thereafter negotiations between the two have been entirely broken off, then the owner, or another broker, may thereafter sell without incurring liability to the first agent, even though the sale is made to the initial prospect. Cadranel v. Wildwood Constr. Co., 101 Ga. App. 630, 115 S.E.2d 415 (1960).
Owner's mere negotiations do not end agent's right to commissions.
- Agent cannot be deprived of the agent's commission by negotiations between the owner and a prospective purchaser with whom the owner has not entered into a mutually binding and enforceable contract for the sale of the property. Hawks v. Moore, 27 Ga. App. 555, 109 S.E. 807 (1921).
Section contemplates binding contract of sale.
- Provision of this section reserving to the owner the right of "selling" the property contemplates that the owner and the purchaser have entered into a mutually binding and enforceable contract before the broker produces a duly qualified purchaser. Hawks v. Moore, 27 Ga. 555, 109 S.E. 807 (1921).
Broker's Right to Compensation
"Able" defined.
- Word "able," as used in this section, means financially able. Shaw v. Chiles, 9 Ga. App. 460, 71 S.E. 745 (1911); Howell Realty Co. v. Boggs, 127 Ga. App. 867, 195 S.E.2d 253 (1973); Rucker v. Corbin, 188 Ga. App. 182, 372 S.E.2d 512 (1988).
Ability to buy, required in a purchaser obtained by a real estate broker as a condition to the broker's right to earn a commission for the broker's services, is the financial ability to meet the required terms of the sale; it does not mean solvency or ability to respond in damages for a breach of the contract. Stewart v. Sink, 29 Ga. App. 17, 114 S.E. 71 (1922); Reisman v. Massey, 84 Ga. App. 796, 67 S.E.2d 585 (1951).
Salesperson in employ of broker.
- This section has no application when the plaintiff is a real estate salesperson in the employ of the defendant, a real estate broker, and the plaintiff's claim is based entirely upon the written contract of employment with the defendant. Howell Realty Co. v. Boggs, 127 Ga. App. 867, 195 S.E.2d 253 (1973).
Broker employed to lease.
- Provisions of this section apply if property is placed in the hands of a broker for the purpose of procuring a lease thereof. Meinhard v. Stillwell Realty Co., 47 Ga. App. 194, 169 S.E. 732 (1933).
If an agent is employed by a real estate renting agency to procure rental agreements between lessors and lessees for such renting agency, for a stipulated percentage of the commissions received by such agency for collecting the rents paid by the lessees under such leases, the agent is ordinarily entitled to such compensation if the agent brings the principal and third persons, who are through the agent's efforts willing to enter a lease as to certain property, into communication with the renting agency, and as a result the parties through the renting agency close the transaction by executing the lease, and the renting agency obtains the handling of the rentals accruing under the lease. Johnson v. Lipscomb-Weyman-Chapman Co., 46 Ga. App. 798, 169 S.E. 266 (1933).
Broker employed to purchase instead of sell.
- By judicial decision, this section has been made applicable to brokers finding property for those principals desiring to purchase. Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Lundeen, 145 Ga. App. 672, 244 S.E.2d 622 (1978).
Real estate agent employed to purchase land is as much entitled to be compensated, in accordance with the agent's contract as one employed to sell land in behalf of the owner. Hendrix v. Crosby, 76 Ga. App. 191, 45 S.E.2d 448 (1947); Pierce v. Deich, 81 Ga. App. 717, 59 S.E.2d 755 (1950).
This section presupposes the existence of an agency between the real estate broker and the property owner before the broker can collect a commission. Galloway v. McKinley, 73 Ga. App. 381, 36 S.E.2d 485 (1945).
Principal not liable to broker acting without authority.
- While an owner of property is bound to pay an authorized broker for the broker's services in procuring a lease of property, if a broker without any authority whatever finds a prospective tenant and induces the tenant to make an offer to lease the property, the owner is not obligated to accept the offer and may accept a later offer, less favorable, from another broker without becoming liable to the broker procuring the first offer, even though the tenant is the same person presented by the first broker. Wilharbla Realty Co. v. Carrington, 62 Ga. App. 778, 9 S.E.2d 842 (1940).
Utmost good faith must be exercised between the principal and broker; but if there was no agreement or relationship between them with respect to the sale of the property or the procuring of a purchaser therefor, there can be no recovery on the part of the broker. Galloway v. McKinley, 73 Ga. App. 381, 36 S.E.2d 485 (1945).
Exclusive sales agency in consideration of broker's promise to list is valid.
- Grant of an exclusive brokerage sale contract in consideration of the broker's promise to list, offer for sale, endeavor to sell, enlist the organization's best efforts to such end in the ordinary course of business, and advertise in such manner as is deemed advisable is not void as being nudum pactum. Efforts to find prospects, show the prospects the property, and relay purchase offers to the owners is a part performance under these terms. Stone v. Reinhard, 124 Ga. App. 355, 183 S.E.2d 601 (1971).
Georgia law does not require real estate listings to be reduced to writing, and oral contracts are enforceable. Thomas v. Memory, 154 Ga. App. 756, 270 S.E.2d 24 (1980).
Oral contracts enforceable.
- Agreement employing the plaintiff to obtain a purchaser for certain real estate owned by the defendants, although oral, may be the basis for an action. Hunter v. Benamy, 101 Ga. App. 907, 115 S.E.2d 424, aff'd, 216 Ga. 511, 117 S.E.2d 627 (1960).
Brokerage contract is not within statute of frauds.
- Contract amounting to a brokerage contract for the sale of lands, containing no power on the part of the broker to execute a conveyance of the lands, is a contract for services and does not come within the statute of frauds as constituting a contract for the sale of lands. Cantrell v. Johnston, 74 Ga. App. 74, 38 S.E.2d 893 (1946).
Limitations on right to commissions must be embodied in contract.
- If the owner of the property desires to limit the owner's liability for commissions in a manner other than that which is governed by the general rule, such as that commissions will be due only in the event of a consummated sale, provision for such limitation of liability must be embodied in the authority to sell. Hall v. Vandiver, 37 Ga. App. 656, 141 S.E. 332 (1928).
Contract may make right subject to acceptance of title.
- Owner may stipulate in the contract of listment that the owner is not to be subject to the payment of brokerage commissions until the actual acceptance of title by the offeror. Kiser Real Estate Co. v. Shippen Hardwood Lumber Co., 34 Ga. App. 308, 129 S.E. 294 (1925).
Contract may make right subject to payment of purchase price.
- Owner may, by the express terms of the owner's agreement with the broker, limit the owner's liability by specifically providing that the commissions shall become earned, due, and payable only as the purchase price shall be actually paid. Such a provision would not, however, affect the broker's rights to commissions in a case when, during the agency, the broker finds a purchaser, ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated, but when the owner personally refuses to consummate the trade. Hogan v. Gilbert, 27 Ga. App. 444, 108 S.E. 625 (1921).
Contract may require broker to procure contract of sale or only able purchaser.
- Real estate broker may contract, as a condition precedent to earning a commission, to procure a contract of sale or the broker's undertaking may be simply to procure a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy, and who offers to buy, upon the terms stipulated by the owner. Knowles v. Haas & Dodd, 70 Ga. App. 715, 29 S.E.2d 312 (1944).
Contract may require other service than procuring purchaser.
- Sometimes, under the broker's employment, the broker's duty is not merely to procure a purchaser, but to perform some other agreed service within a reasonable time, or within a limited time. In such cases the general rule in this section as to what is required of the broker in order to be entitled to commissions is modified accordingly. Phinizy v. Bush, 129 Ga. 479, 59 S.E. 259 (1907).
This section has no application to a sales agency contract. Chastain v. Allison, 122 Ga. App. 811, 178 S.E.2d 752 (1970).
If contract, statutory provisions not relevant.
- If the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an express contract creating the relationship of exclusive sales agency, the provisions of this section are not applicable. Ragsdale v. Smith, 110 Ga. App. 485, 138 S.E.2d 916 (1964).
Broker's right to commissions may be limited to consummated sales.
- It is possible for the owner, by the contract of employment, to appoint, not a broker, but an exclusive sales agent, so that the latter will be entitled to commissions only upon consummated sales, and not upon mere executory contracts as contemplated by the provisions of this section. Roberts v. Prater & Forrester, 29 Ga. App. 245, 114 S.E. 645 (1922).
Mere reference to selling does not limit broker's right.
- Mere fact that in a contract between an owner and a broker, listing property for sale, use is made of the words "to sell," does not change the status of the agent thus employed from that of a broker to a sales agent, so as to render inoperative the provision of this section, that the broker's commissions are earned when, during the agency, the broker finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy. Roberts v. Prater & Forrester, 29 Ga. App. 245, 114 S.E. 645 (1922); Wehunt v. Babb, 84 Ga. App. 536, 66 S.E.2d 405 (1951) ("negotiate the sale" used).
Broker as "procuring cause" of sale.
- If a broker can show that the broker was the "procuring cause" of the sale, the broker is entitled to a commission even though the broker has no exclusive agency and even though someone else may actually have consummated the sale. Kraft Land Servs., Inc. v. Hart Co., 165 Ga. App. 358, 300 S.E.2d 186 (1983).
In determining whether or not a real estate broker is the procuring cause of a sale if there is no exclusive contract to sell, the broker must show and prove that there were negotiations still pending between the broker and the prospective purchaser and that the owner was aware that negotiations were still pending at the time the broker consummated the sale. Kraft Land Servs., Inc. v. Hart Co., 165 Ga. App. 358, 300 S.E.2d 186 (1983); Income Properties v. Glass, 195 Ga. App. 127, 392 S.E.2d 728 (1990).
If an express contract governs the conditions under which a commission is to be paid, the common law "procuring cause" doctrine does not apply. B&R Realty, Inc. v. Carroll, 245 Ga. App. 44, 537 S.E.2d 183 (2000).
Effect of reference to "other terms acceptable to me".
- Under provisions in a broker's contract for sale under the terms stipulated "or any other terms acceptable to me," an offer to buy for a lesser price procured and submitted to the defendants by the plaintiffs would constitute performance. Stone v. Reinhard, 124 Ga. App. 355, 183 S.E.2d 601 (1971).
Reference to named sales amount "net to him".
- Agreement between owner and broker for sale of the owner's property for a named amount "net to him" does not import by implication a contract to allow the broker, as a fee, the excess of the purchase price above the sum so named. Norwood v. Robie, 102 Ga. App. 206, 115 S.E.2d 729 (1960).
Broker's action is on a contract, not contract of sale.
- Action by the broker to recover the broker's commissions alleged to be due is not an action upon the contract of sale which the broker has procured between a principal, the owner of the land, and the customer, the purchaser, but is a suit upon the contract, either express or implied, between the broker and the principal to pay commissions for services performed by the broker in respect to selling or procuring a purchaser for the real estate. Knowles v. Haas & Dodd, 70 Ga. App. 715, 29 S.E.2d 312 (1944).
If a realty company, as agent for an owner in good faith procured a purchaser who offered in writing to buy certain real estate on the terms and conditions specified by the owner, and the owner accepted the purchaser tendered and executed the contract of sale, a verdict for the realtor for the usual and customary commission would have been authorized; and the realty company was not required to proceed against the purchaser for the company's commission under certain provisions of the sale the contract between the purchaser and owner, as the company did not sign the sales contract, was not a party to the contract, and therefore could not sue the purchaser by virtue of such contract. Cox v. Dolvin Realty Co., 56 Ga. App. 649, 193 S.E. 467 (1937).
Broker's contract may be part of contract of sale with third party.
- If the right of action by the plaintiff broker is based upon an agreement to pay a commission contained in an alleged written contract for the sale of the defendant's property which is negotiated by the plaintiff with a third party, the liability of the defendant must be determined by the validity and effect of the written contract. Ragsdale v. Smith, 110 Ga. App. 485, 138 S.E.2d 916 (1964).
Contract of sale may place limitations on right to commissions.
- General rule laid down by this section that a real estate broker's commission is earned when, during the agency, the broker finds a purchaser ready, able, etc., does not apply when an agreement to pay a definite amount as commission is included in a preliminary contract of sale between the owner and the proposed purchaser, by the terms of which a commission "for making the trade" is to be paid only in the event "it is closed"; a verdict in favor of the broker suing for such commission is not demanded when there is evidence that the would-be purchaser declined to complete the sale, upon the ground that the purchaser had been advised that the title to the real estate in question was defective. Nutting & Co. v. Kennedy, 16 Ga. App. 569, 85 S.E. 767 (1915).
Broker's contract irrevocable during agreed term.
- If the owner of land gives to a broker, for a valuable consideration, a written option, for a named number of days, to sell the owner's land at a certain fixed price, the owner cannot lawfully withdraw the option during the life of the contract. The broker's commissions are earned if, during the life of the option, the broker finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy, the land on the terms stipulated by the owner. Cobb v. Jolley, 30 Ga. App. 48, 116 S.E. 553 (1923).
If not agreed, term is reasonable time.
- If no time limit is fixed in a contract authorizing an agent to sell real estate, then, under the law, the agent has a reasonable time within which to do so. Wood v. Planzer, 73 Ga. App. 731, 37 S.E.2d 813 (1946).
If the agent expends time and effort in endeavoring to effect a sale pursuant to the agent's employment by the owner to obtain a specified commission if a sale is made, the listing ripens into a contract by the agent's furnishing a consideration through the expenditure of the agent's physical and fiscal efforts to find a buyer. When the listing has ripened into such a contract and no time limit has been fixed, the listing's duration is for a reasonable time. Thornton v. Lewis, 106 Ga. App. 328, 126 S.E.2d 869 (1962).
Owner's right to defeat agent's commission.
- When the owner of real estate has authorized a broker to sell the real estate, without setting a time limit, the owner is bound to exercise good faith towards the agent and not captiously withdraw the property for the purpose of defeating the agent's commission about to be earned. Wood v. Planzer, 73 Ga. App. 731, 37 S.E.2d 813 (1946); Thornton v. Lewis, 106 Ga. App. 328, 126 S.E.2d 869 (1962).
Right to commission during term of lease extended by extension of lease.
- If a contract of lease contains an option to the lessee to purchase the property at a price and on terms as stated "at any time during the time this lease is in effect," with an agreement by the lessor-owner to pay to the broker a commission of 5 percent of the purchase price, "in the event this option is exercised," and when, before the expiration of the lease, the lessor and lessee extend it for an additional six months, within which time the option is exercised and a deed is made, the lessor will still be liable to the broker for the agreed commissions just as if the option had been exercised during the original term of the lease. Odell v. Wessinger, 54 Ga. App. 838, 189 S.E. 367 (1936).
If negotiations are successful, broker entitled to commission.
- Broker is entitled to a commission whenever negotiations conducted by the broker on behalf of the principal culminate in the purchase of the property by the principal or would have so culminated but for the principal's interference. Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Lundeen, 145 Ga. App. 672, 244 S.E.2d 622 (1978).
Securing a binding contract of sale is a prerequisite to recovery. Barnes v. Whatley, 221 Ga. App. 110, 470 S.E.2d 498 (1996).
Consummation of sale entitles broker to commission.
- Broker is entitled to commissions when the broker produces a purchaser who consummates the sale on terms satisfactory to the owner. Glassman v. Melrose Constr. Co., 100 Ga. App. 763, 112 S.E.2d 282 (1959).
Option obtained that is later exercised entitles broker to commission.
- This section applies if the purchaser procured by the broker first buys an option to purchase, and subsequently, within the life of the option, exercises the purchaser's option by electing to purchase and gives timely and unconditional notice thereof to the other party. In such a case the broker's right to the broker's commissions does not ripen into a cause of action until the option has been actually exercised. Snead v. Wood, 24 Ga. App. 210, 100 S.E. 714 (1919); Odell v. Wessinger, 54 Ga. App. 838, 189 S.E. 367 (1936).
If a real estate sales person procures for a customer only an option to buy and the option is afterwards exercised and a contract of sale thereby results, the broker has consummated the contract and has earned a commission. Mendenhall v. Adair Realty & Loan Co., 67 Ga. App. 154, 19 S.E.2d 740 (1942).
Commission properly refused if contract of sale not affected.
- If the essentials necessary for a contract of sale which would have effectuated the intention and agreements of the parties was lacking, the court correctly refused to order the payment of a commission. William L. Thomas Co. v. Kretsos, 115 Ga. App. 550, 155 S.E.2d 453 (1967).
Contract of sale need not be carried out if enforceable.
- Right of a broker to the broker's commission does not depend upon the carrying out of the contract of sale, but the broker is entitled to the commission when the broker has procured a purchaser and the seller has accepted the purchaser and entered into a binding and enforceable contract of sale. Davis v. Holbrook, 75 Ga. App. 417, 43 S.E.2d 791 (1947).
Final act of closing the sale is not a condition precedent to the broker's right to a commission, if the broker has secured a binding contract of sale. Northside Realty Assocs. v. MPI Corp., 245 Ga. 321, 265 S.E.2d 11 (1980).
When vendee sent vendor a written offer to purchase the property and to prorate the taxes for year due and the vendor accepted this offer and executed a written acceptance thereof and turned the same over to the broker, who notified the vendee of such acceptance, a valid contract arose between the parties for the sale of the property on the terms stated in the written offer, and the broker's commission was earned. Smith v. Knight, 75 Ga. App. 178, 42 S.E.2d 570 (1947).
Sale need not actually occur, in order for the broker to earn a commission, if the parties entered into a binding and enforceable agreement. Carroll v. Harry Norman, Inc., 198 Ga. App. 614, 402 S.E.2d 357 (1991).
Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a home seller and against a realtor in construing the unambiguous language in the brokerage agreement at issue, which was for a definite term and was not terminable at will; moreover, although a sale was not consummated, the realtor remained entitled to the realtor's six percent commission, and the seller remained obligated to pay that amount, which was the proper measure of damages. Ben Farmer Realty, Inc. v. Owens, 286 Ga. App. 678, 649 S.E.2d 771 (2007), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 81 (Ga. 2008).
Production of able purchaser during term earns commission.
- In view of the testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff, a broker suing for commissions, told the defendant that the would-be purchaser was ready to take the property on the terms stated and that the defendant knew the would-be purchaser was able to pay for the property, which evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the plaintiff and the would-be purchaser, the verdict for the plaintiff cannot be set aside on appeal. Davis v. Davis & Joiner Realty, 23 Ga. App. 577, 99 S.E. 60 (1919).
If property is placed in the hands of a real estate broker for sale on a commission, the commission is earned when, during the agency, the broker finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner. Ray v. Hutchinson, 27 Ga. App. 448, 108 S.E. 815 (1921); Wood v. Planzer, 73 Ga. App. 731, 37 S.E.2d 813 (1946).
When a broker secures a purchaser for lands during the life of the broker's contract of employment who is ready, able, and willing to purchase on the terms stipulated by the owner, the broker has earned the broker's commission agreed upon. Cantrell v. Johnston, 74 Ga. App. 74, 38 S.E.2d 893 (1946).
If real estate brokers present a purchaser ready, willing, and able to complete the sale and close the transaction, unless the purchaser breaches a fiduciary duty, the brokers are entitled to the sales commission provided in the contract. Paredes v. Bud Bailey Corp., 160 Ga. App. 572, 287 S.E.2d 620 (1981).
Commission without actual consummation of sale.
- Real estate agent may earn commissions even when a sale is not actually consummated, but the agent must procure a purchaser who is ready, willing, etc., or else the agent is not entitled to a commission. Floyd & Lee v. Boyd, 16 Ga. App. 43, 84 S.E. 494 (1915); Rothberg v. Manhattan Coil Co., 84 Ga. 528, 66 S.E.2d 390 (1951), commented on in 3 Mercer L. Rev. 348.
Commission without binding written contract.
- In a suit for commission it is not essential to recovery that there shall have been executed a written contract of sale binding alike on the seller and the purchaser. Pierce v. Deich, 81 Ga. App. 717, 59 S.E.2d 755 (1950).
Commission when owner agrees to remove lien.
- Real estate broker earns the broker's commission when during the agency the broker finds a purchaser ready, able, etc. This is true even though there may exist a lien upon the property, known to the broker, but which the owner in a contract with the purchaser, accepting the offer and binding the sale, agrees to remove. Martin v. Thrower, 28 Ga. App. 270, 110 S.E. 742 (1922).
Commission when purchaser's offer is contingent on obtaining loan.
- Language in a contingency clause in a contract for the sale of real estate stating, "Purchaser agrees within seven days after the date of this contract to make application for such loan and to pursue and seek to obtain such loan diligently and in good faith. Purchaser agrees to accept a commitment and to execute and deliver all documents required to close the loan, if a commitment to make the loan is obtained by Purchaser or by Seller or Broker on behalf of Purchaser," are express promises sufficient to supply mutuality of obligation in exchange for the seller's holding open the offer to sell until the time specified for the closing, and this fulfills the agent's obligation to furnish a ready, able, and willing buyer. Fourteen W. Realty, Inc. v. Screws, 147 Ga. App. 362, 248 S.E.2d 722 (1978).
Trial court erred in granting a real estate broker's motion for summary judgment on the broker's counterclaim for real estate commissions because a potential buyer was unable to obtain the financing, which prevented sales from closing, and if the exception to the financing contingencies did not apply, then under Georgia law, the buyer's obligation as the non-performing party to pay the commissions never arose, for in those circumstances the commissions were never earned since the sales contracts were neither binding nor enforceable; the broker did not depose or otherwise obtain evidence from a bank as to why the bank denied the buyer's loan, and the broker did not seek the buyer's financial records to determine how much money the buyer had on hand for a closing or ask whether additional investors or sources would provide the buyer with the down payment money. Desmear Sys., Inc. v. Vines, 305 Ga. App. 730, 700 S.E.2d 711 (2010).
Owner need not be confronted with buyer.
- Under this section, the commissions are earned when a purchaser is found and the owner is notified, though the prospective purchaser is not brought into the actual presence of the owner and no contract of sale binding alike on the seller and purchaser has been made. Wilmot & Cosby v. Silverman, 26 Ga. App. 196, 105 S.E. 654 (1921).
Broker need not have obtained offer if sale completed with fraudulent intent.
- If the broker has failed to procure an offer to buy upon the terms stipulated and the owner has not relinquished the owner's right to sell the property personally, to authorize a recovery of commissions it must appear that the owner negotiated the sale directly to the customer procured by the broker with a fraudulent intent to deprive the broker of the broker's commission, in order for the broker to recover the broker's commission. Kuniansky v. Williams, 101 Ga. App. 678, 115 S.E.2d 204 (1960).
Showing broker was procuring cause of sale is gist of action.
- Gist of an action by a broker to recover commissions is the showing that the plaintiff-broker was the procuring or efficient cause of the sale. Woodall v. McEachern, 113 Ga. App. 213, 147 S.E.2d 659 (1966); Fields Realty & Ins. Co. v. Smith, 123 Ga. App. 342, 180 S.E.2d 909 (1971).
Realty company is not entitled to any brokerage commission since the firm never had any direct contact with the party who bought the property and was not the procuring cause of the sale. King-Williams Realty & Mtg., Inc. v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 142 Ga. App. 620, 236 S.E.2d 695 (1977).
Broker must be shown to be cause of sale whether broker's claim is for breach of contract or in tort.
- Whether the claim is in the nature of a breach of a contract between the seller and broker or a claim in tort based on a conspiracy to deprive the broker of a commission, it must appear that the broker's effort was a procuring or efficient cause of the sale. Tidwell & Yarbrough Realty Co. v. Foster, 123 Ga. App. 192, 180 S.E.2d 259 (1971).
In the absence of alleging or proving that the plaintiff-broker was the procuring or efficient cause of the sale, there can be no contract breached in the first instance nor a conspiracy coupled with a wrong done in the second. Fields Realty & Ins. Co. v. Smith, 123 Ga. App. 342, 180 S.E.2d 909 (1971).
Burden of proof on broker.
- In a suit for commissions, the burden of showing all the requirements is on the broker. Carroll v. Harry Norman, Inc., 198 Ga. App. 614, 402 S.E.2d 357 (1991).
Summary judgment for a broker on the broker's suit for recovery of a real estate sales commission was reversed, when the broker did not carry the broker's burden of demonstrating that the purchaser failed to make a reasonable attempt to obtain the loan the purchaser was obliged to seek under the contractual terms, or that the purchaser qualified for such, or that the purchaser agreed to close with an optional loan. Carroll v. Harry Norman, Inc., 198 Ga. App. 614, 402 S.E.2d 357 (1991).
Broker must have sold or procured sale of property.
- In order for a broker to earn commission on account of the sale of property, the broker must either have sold the property or been the procuring cause of the sale. Hendrix v. Crosby, 76 Ga. App. 191, 45 S.E.2d 448 (1947); Erwin v. Wender, 78 Ga. App. 94, 50 S.E.2d 244 (1948); Tidwell & Yarbrough Realty Co. v. Foster, 123 Ga. App. 192, 180 S.E.2d 259 (1971); First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. McNatt, 141 Ga. App. 6, 232 S.E.2d 356 (1977); Booth v. Watson, 153 Ga. App. 672, 266 S.E.2d 326 (1980).
Finding the prospect and attempting to make the sale are not sufficient, in law, to justify payment of commissions to an agent. The sale of the property is what gets results for the owner and for the agent. To earn a commission, one must be the procuring cause. One must, during the agency, find a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner. Jordan v. Dolvin Realty Co., 54 Ga. App. 472, 188 S.E. 304 (1936).
Broker with whom property is listed for sale does not make out a case of procuring cause by merely showing that the broker first located the ultimate purchaser, if it further appears that without interference by the owner the broker was unsuccessful in bringing about an offer which could be consummated and that the sale was made after the broker had abandoned the broker's effort. Tidwell & Yarbrough Realty Co. v. Foster, 123 Ga. App. 192, 180 S.E.2d 259 (1971).
Owner-negotiated sale.
- In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the owner is not deprived of the right to sell the property personally and consequently does not ordinarily become liable to the purchaser for commissions upon a sale negotiated by the owner. City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Orr, 39 Ga. App. 217, 146 S.E. 795 (1929).
Termination of broker's negotiations.
- That commission which it has been agreed a broker will be paid to procure a purchaser is not recoverable from a principal who subsequently made an exchange proposed by the broker by virtue of this section upon the theory that the broker had furnished a purchaser ready, able, etc., when the broker had not been given an exclusive brokerage and there was nothing to indicate that the negotiations between the broker and the purchaser had not been terminated. Drew v. Cone, 19 Ga. App. 704, 91 S.E. 1068 (1917).
Brokers in whose hands property is placed for sale, in order to earn commissions on account of the sale of such property, must either have sold the property or been the procuring cause of the sale. If the purchaser who was spoken to by the brokers had abandoned all idea of the trade, and the brokers had no influence at all in bringing it about, the brokers would not be entitled to commissions, although the purchaser subsequently may have bought from the owner. Crutchfield v. Western Elec. Co., 66 Ga. App. 161, 17 S.E.2d 246 (1941).
When an owner lists property for sale with a broker and the broker procures a prospect, but the sale as contemplated is not consummated and the parties in good faith break off negotiations, the broker is not the procuring cause of the ultimate transaction between the same owner and buyer and is not entitled to a commission. Parrish v. Ragsdale Realty Co., 135 Ga. App. 491, 218 S.E.2d 164 (1975).
No interference from owner.
- If plaintiff brought suit to recover broker's commissions alleged to be due on the sale of a hotel lease and furnishings, but the plaintiff had not produced a customer who was ready, able, and willing to buy and who actually offered to buy on the terms stipulated by the defendant owner, at the time of the sale by the owner through another broker, the negotiations between the plaintiff and the prospective buyer had come to an end, and the owner had not interfered with the efforts of the plaintiff to make a sale to the prospect, the jury was authorized to return a verdict in favor of the defendant. Thompson v. Weeks, 60 Ga. App. 560, 4 S.E.2d 415 (1939).
Acquiescence in rescission of contract of sale.
- Real estate agent is not entitled to commissions for the sale of land, when, prior to the completion of the sale, the parties disagree as to the terms of the sale and it is agreed between the parties that the transaction be considered at an end, if the agent acquiesces in such rescission of the contract of sale, even though the owner of the land subsequently places it in the hands of another agent who sells it on practically the same terms to the purchaser secured by the first agent, unless fraud or bad faith be shown. Girardeau & Saunders v. Gibson, 122 Ga. 313, 50 S.E. 91 (1905); F.L. Allison & Co. v. McMath Plantation Co., 29 Ga. App. 414, 115 S.E. 916 (1923).
Offer by proposed purchaser different from terms stipulated by owner.
- By virtue of this section, an offer by the proposed purchaser to buy on terms not stipulated by the owner will not entitle the broker to the broker's commissions. Parker v. Stubbs, 139 Ga. 46, 76 S.E. 571 (1912); Howard v. Sills & Purvis, 154 Ga. 430, 114 S.E. 580 (1922), answers conformed to, 29 Ga. App. 410, 116 S.E. 31 (1923); Atlanta Realty Co. v. Campion, 94 Ga. App. 136, 93 S.E.2d 781 (1956).
Generally, a broker's commission is earned when, during the agency, the broker finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy and who actually offers to buy, on the terms stipulated by the owner, and an offer by the proposed purchaser to buy on terms not stipulated by the owner will not entitle the broker to the broker's commission. Sikes v. Markham, 74 Ga. App. 874, 41 S.E.2d 828 (1947).
While in every action for broker's commissions proof of acceptance of an offer might not be required, if the action is predicated upon the broker's having procured a buyer ready, willing, and able to buy on terms stipulated by the owner, the proof of an offer by the proposed purchaser to buy on terms not stipulated by the owner will not entitle the plaintiff broker to the broker's commissions. Fourteen W. Realty Inc. v. Lane, 147 Ga. App. 171, 248 S.E.2d 233 (1978).
In order for the agent to recover the agent's commission, the offer to buy must be in the exact terms stipulated and the offer must be accepted unequivocally and without variance of any sort. Barnett v. Eubanks, 105 Ga. App. 749, 125 S.E.2d 571 (1962).
Offer by the proposed purchaser to buy on terms not stipulated by the owner, which is refused, will not entitle the agent to a commission. Even a slight variation will prevent the agent from recovering. Thornton v. Lewis, 106 Ga. App. 328, 126 S.E.2d 869 (1962).
Proof of an offer by a proposed purchaser to buy on terms not stipulated by the seller will not entitle a broker to the broker's commissions. Clover Realty Co. v. Gouyd, 153 Ga. App. 64, 264 S.E.2d 547 (1980).
Even a slight variation from the owner's terms will prevent the agent from recovering. Schaffer v. Padgett, 107 Ga. App. 861, 131 S.E.2d 796 (1963); Bentley Group, Ltd. v. Paces Ferry Anesthesiology Assocs., 180 Ga. App. 818, 350 S.E.2d 826 (1986).
Variance may authorize repudiation of contract.
- If there was a clear variance between the contract effected by the plaintiff and that which the plaintiff was authorized to make, the owner has the right to repudiate the contract, as there was no acceptance on the terms stipulated by the owner. Huson v. Dawson Naval Stores & Lumber Co., 23 Ga. App. 353, 98 S.E. 186 (1919).
Agreement may authorize compensation when any terms are accepted by principal.
- If the plaintiff's commission, under agreement with the defendant, was to be the difference between the terms acceptable to the defendant and the actual sale price of the business, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the plaintiff's commission upon proof that the defendant, during the agency, accepted any one of the various sets of terms offered by the purchasers, secured by the plaintiff, who were ready, able, and willing to purchase. Ray v. Thomas McDonald Corp., 90 Ga. App. 872, 84 S.E.2d 705 (1954).
Broker must fully perform unless principal prevents performance.
- If the compensation is to be paid by way of commissions, the whole service or duty must be performed before any right to commissions arises, unless the act of the principal has prevented the performance of it. Hyams v. Miller, 71 Ga. 608 (1883); Craigmiles v. Steyerman, 27 Ga. App. 14, 107 S.E. 386 (1921).
To entitle a sales agent to commissions when the sale has not been consummated, it must be made to appear that the agent has performed the whole duty or service required of the agent under the agent's contract, except insofar as the agent has been prevented by the conduct of the owner. Roberts v. Prater & Forrester, 29 Ga. App. 245, 114 S.E. 645 (1922).
Broker cannot recover when owner's offer is conditioned on option that prospect buys and exercises.
- Real estate broker's commissions are not earned until the broker's principal, the owner, makes an unconditional offer to sell and the offer is accepted by a purchaser found by the broker; accordingly, if the offer of the owner is conditioned upon an outstanding option not being exercised and the purchaser found by the broker buys the option from its holder, has it transferred to the purchaser, and exercises it by buying the property, the broker cannot recover. Birchmore v. Upchurch, 78 Ga. App. 233, 50 S.E.2d 857 (1948).
No commission if customer's offer is unacceptable but customer is assigned contract with third party.
- Real estate broker is not entitled to a commission from an owner of real estate for sale of the real estate to a customer of the broker who had made an unacceptable offer for the property and with whom the broker was still negotiating, where the sale was made to such customer by virtue of the assignment in good faith of a contract for the purchase of the property from one who was not a customer of the broker. Dolvin Realty Co. v. Jones, 63 Ga. App. 351, 11 S.E.2d 105 (1940).
Sale after full performance does not cut off broker's right.
- If there is such compliance with a broker's contract as to entitle a plaintiff broker to a commission, the fact that the land was sold by the owners or by a third person would not cut off the broker's right to payment. Stone v. Reinhard, 124 Ga. App. 355, 183 S.E.2d 601 (1971).
Broker, if procuring cause, entitled to compensation although principal closes transaction.
- If the agent is the procuring cause of the transaction, the agent is entitled to compensation for effecting the transaction, if the principal closes the transaction itself. Johnson v. Lipscomb-Weyman-Chapman Co., 46 Ga. App. 798, 169 S.E. 266 (1933).
If property placed in the hands of a broker for sale is subsequently sold by the owner, the broker is entitled to the commission, if the broker was the procuring cause of the sale, although the sale was actually consummated by the owner. Erwin v. Wender, 78 Ga. App. 94, 50 S.E.2d 244 (1948); Pierce v. Deich, 81 Ga. App. 717, 59 S.E.2d 755 (1950).
Sale by owner to purchaser procured by broker.
- Under this section, when a broker procures a purchaser ready, able, etc., to buy, the principal cannot defeat the broker's right to commission by completing the sale personally through another broker. Gresham v. Lee, 152 Ga. 829, 111 S.E. 404, answers conformed to, 28 Ga. App. 576, 112 S.E. 524 (1922). See also Central of Ga. Ry. v. McKenzie, 125 Ga. 222, 53 S.E. 591 (1906).
Principal cannot, with knowledge of the negotiations between the purchaser and the agent, and while such negotiations are still pending, defeat the right of the agent to recover such commission by interfering with and the principal completing the sale of which the agent was the procuring cause. Gresham v. Connally, 114 Ga. 906, 41 S.E. 42 (1902); Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Binns, 23 Ga. App. 46, 97 S.E. 443 (1918); Brown & Peeples v. Stokes, 25 Ga. App. 254, 103 S.E. 423 (1920); Washington v. Jordan, 28 Ga. App. 18, 109 S.E. 923 (1921); City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Orr, 39 Ga. App. 217, 146 S.E. 795 (1929); Bromberg v. Drake, 91 Ga. App. 118, 85 S.E.2d 160 (1954).
If the owner of property has listed it with a real estate broker to be sold, and the broker procures a prospective purchaser, and the owner, with knowledge of this fact intervenes or sells the property to the customer or prospective purchaser procured by the broker, an inference is authorized that the broker has earned a commission and can recover the commission from the owner. Mendenhall v. Adair Realty & Loan Co., 67 Ga. App. 154, 19 S.E.2d 740 (1942); Spence v. Walker, 92 Ga. App. 609, 89 S.E.2d 668 (1955).
Owner, or another broker, even though there is no exclusive agency provision in the agreement, cannot, with knowledge of negotiations between a prospect and another broker, interfere and by closing the sale defeat the right of the first agent to the agent's commissions. Cadranel v. Wildwood Constr. Co., 101 Ga. App. 630, 115 S.E.2d 415 (1960).
Sale at differing terms to purchaser procured by broker.
- While even the slightest variation from the terms the owner fixed in the listing with the agent will prevent the recovery of commissions, such a departure does not in all cases prevent the agent from recovering commissions when a sale has been made by the owner to a buyer procured by the agent. The test to be applied is whether the agent was the procuring cause of the sale made to a buyer directly by the owner. Thornton v. Lewis, 106 Ga. App. 328, 126 S.E.2d 869 (1962).
Sale at less than listed price to purchaser procured by broker.
- Owner may sell the property, and if the owner does not use the broker's labor to help in the sale, the owner owes the broker nothing, but if a purchaser procured by the broker buys from the owner, even at a lower price than that given the broker, the owner would be liable for the broker's commission if the broker's effort was the procuring cause of the sale. Hendrix v. Crosby, 76 Ga. App. 191, 45 S.E.2d 448 (1947); Erwin v. Wender, 78 Ga. App. 94, 50 S.E.2d 244 (1948); Tidwell & Yarbrough Realty Co. v. Foster, 123 Ga. App. 192, 180 S.E.2d 259 (1971); Booth v. Watson, 153 Ga. App. 672, 266 S.E.2d 326 (1980).
If the broker is the procuring cause, the owner is liable for commissions even if the owner sells to the broker's prospect at a price less than that listed with the broker. Glassman v. Melrose Constr. Co., 100 Ga. App. 763, 112 S.E.2d 282 (1959).
Purchase at higher price than broker authorized to pay.
- If the defendant used the plaintiff's labor in getting the price of the property substantially reduced and used the information furnished by the plaintiff in contacting the seller's agent, and the plaintiff's effort was the procuring cause of the sale and culminated in the defendant purchasing the property, defendant could not defeat the broker's right to the broker's commission by purchasing the property directly through the seller's agent, even though the buyer paid a slightly higher price for it than the buyer had authorized the broker to pay, but the broker would be entitled to the broker's commissions for purchasing the property. Hendrix v. Crosby, 76 Ga. App. 191, 45 S.E.2d 448 (1947).
Principal's knowledge of broker was procuring cause.
- Rule that renders the owner liable to the agent when the agent was the procuring cause of a sale is subject to the further requirement that the owner have knowledge, at the time of entering into the contract of sale or of selling it without a contract, of the fact that the buyers were procured by the agent. Thornton v. Lewis, 106 Ga. App. 328, 126 S.E.2d 869 (1962).
Knowledge that negotiations were still pending.
- If the owner sells to a buyer who was initially approached by a broker, in determining whether or not the broker was the procuring cause of the sale when there is no exclusive contract to sell, it must be established that: (1) the negotiations were still pending between the broker and the prospective purchaser; and (2) the owner was aware that the negotiations were still pending at the time the owner consummated the sale. Booth v. Watson, 153 Ga. App. 672, 266 S.E.2d 326 (1980); Gibbs v. Nixon, 154 Ga. App. 463, 268 S.E.2d 670 (1980); Hodges-Ward Assocs. v. Ecclestone, 156 Ga. App. 59, 273 S.E.2d 872 (1980).
Mere knowledge of proposed sale does not establish negotiations.
- Mere knowledge by the prospective purchaser of the proposed sale as received by it from the broker is totally insufficient to establish negotiations in the purchase of the property. Gibbs v. Nixon, 154 Ga. App. 643, 268 S.E.2d 670 (1980).
Principal cannot defeat claim by pretended intervening sale to third person.
- Since the utmost good faith must be exercised between the owner and the broker, the owner cannot defeat the broker's claim for commissions by resorting to any subterfuge, such as a pretended conveyance to a third person while still retaining control of the property, in order that the title may be acquired by the customer procured by the broker through such third person. City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Orr, 39 Ga. App. 217, 146 S.E. 795 (1929).
Bona fide intervening sale is good defense.
- Bona fide intervening sale, if established, would amount to a complete defense to the broker's claim. City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Orr, 39 Ga. App. 217, 146 S.E. 795 (1929).
Unless principal repurchases and continues to use broker's services.
- If the owner, after having made a bona fide sale of the property to a customer procured by the owner and not by the broker, continues to avail himself of the broker's services by encouraging the broker to continue negotiations for the sale of the property to the customer with whom the broker had been negotiating and afterwards accepts the broker's customer and sells the property to the broker's customer upon the terms originally prescribed by the owner, the owner, having in the meantime repurchased the property, cannot avoid liability to the broker for commissions upon the ground of a previous sale of the property by the owner. City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Orr, 42 Ga. App. 807, 157 S.E. 520 (1931).
Broker need not be sole cause to earn commission.
- In determining whether a broker has earned the broker's commission for procuring a purchaser, it is not necessary that the broker's services shall have been the sole cause; but it is enough if the efforts of the broker, acting on the purchaser, are the efficient cause of the offer. Erwin v. Wender, 78 Ga. App. 94, 50 S.E.2d 244 (1948).
It need not appear that the broker's effort was the sole procuring cause, but it is enough if it appears that it was an efficient cause. Tidwell & Yarbrough Realty Co. v. Foster, 123 Ga. App. 192, 180 S.E.2d 259 (1971).
If there were two brokers, question is whose efforts were primary, procuring cause.
- When the services of a broker, as well as those of another broker, have conjointly contributed to the successful termination of negotiations resulting in the transfer of real estate for an owner, the question which of the brokers is entitled to commissions from the owner for effecting such transfer depends upon whose efforts were the primary, proximate, and procuring cause of the transfer negotiated. Nestle Co. v. J.H. Ewing & Sons, 153 Ga. App. 328, 265 S.E.2d 61 (1980).
Award may be based on quantum meruit even if broker not procuring cause.
- Jury can award damages based on quantum meruit even if the jury determines that the plaintiffs were not the procuring cause of the transfer. Nestle Co. v. J.H. Ewing & Sons, 153 Ga. App. 328, 265 S.E.2d 61 (1980).
Owner liable if real party in interest was procured by broker.
- Lessor's liability to pay a broker's commission pursuant to an agreement in a lease containing an option of purchase would not be defeated by the fact that a deed was executed to the spouse of lessee at the lessee's instance, when the lessee was the real party at interest, or was jointly interested with the lessee's spouse, or by the fact that the deed recited a consideration of less than the contract amount, when the lessor, without the consent or knowledge of the broker, completed the transaction by accepting all of the consideration in cash instead of the agreed part cash and part time payments, and the total amount paid actually exceeded the contract price, and even if, as contended, the amount accepted by the lessor had been less than the agreed price, liability would not have been defeated. Odell v. Wessinger, 54 Ga. App. 838, 189 S.E. 367 (1936).
Principal refusing to effectuate sale liable to broker.
- If the owner, without legal excuse, refuses to effectuate the sale, the owner becomes liable for the commissions pursuant to the provision of this section; and after such a refusal, it is generally not necessary that the proposed purchaser shall have made to the owner an actual tender of the purchase price. Hogan v. Gilbert, 27 Ga. App. 444, 108 S.E. 625 (1921).
Under contracts creating the ordinary relationship of principal and real estate broker and providing commissions for the latter, the principle of this section applies, and the broker has made a sale whenever, through the broker's influence, a person ready, able, and willing to buy on the terms proposed is brought to the principal, though, through the fault or disinclination of the principal, no actual sale is ever consummated. Humphries & Jackson v. Smith, 5 Ga. App. 340, 63 S.E. 248 (1908); Kesler v. Stults, 15 Ga. App. 735, 84 S.E. 201 (1915).
If an owner of land authorized a broker to sell the land at a stated price, agreeing to pay the broker a certain sum as commission for making the sale, and the latter procured an offer to be made for the purchase of the land at that price, on stated terms of payment, which offer was accepted by the owner, the broker was entitled to the broker's commission notwithstanding there was a failure to consummate the sale, if the cause of the failure was the refusal of the owner to proceed further with the transaction because the owner was dissatisfied with the terms of payment to which the owner had agreed; if this was the sole ground of objection assigned by the owner at the time of the refusal, other grounds of objection then known to the owner were waived, and would not avail the owner as a defense to an action for the commission. The question of estoppel becomes one for determination of the jury. Broyles v. Haas, 51 Ga. App. 374, 180 S.E. 517 (1935).
Interference of principal with consummation.
- By virtue of this section, the agent would not be deprived of the agent's commissions if it is made to appear that the whole service or duty devolving upon the agent has been performed and that only the refusal or interference of the owner has prevented the consummation of the sale according to the terms authorized in the contract of listment. Roberts v. Prater & Forrester, 29 Ga. App. 245, 114 S.E. 645 (1922).
This section does not mean that a broker is entitled to the broker's commissions only when the transaction has been closed by a conveyance and payment of the purchase price. A contract for commissions on sales entitles the broker to the specified compensation whenever through the broker's influence a prospective purchaser has been brought to the principal, though by reason of some fault or disinclination of the latter the sale is never completed or is consummated on terms somewhat different from those originally proposed by the principal. Pierce v. Deich, 81 Ga. App. 717, 59 S.E.2d 755 (1950).
Contention that when a sale is not consummated, the seller is relieved of the seller's obligation to pay the commission, though a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy was produced, is without merit when it appears that the failure to consummate the sale was the seller's fault. Hope v. DeForest Realty, Inc., 144 Ga. App. 269, 241 S.E.2d 49 (1977).
Broker makes out a prima facie case that the broker was the procuring cause of the completed transaction when the broker shows that negotiations for the sale were set on foot through the broker's efforts, that the broker performed every service required by the employment which it was possible to perform, and that the failure on the broker's part to personally consummate the transaction was due to the interference of the defendant. Nestle Co. v. J.H. Ewing & Sons, 153 Ga. App. 328, 265 S.E.2d 61 (1980).
Refusal of owner to carry out trade.
- If a broker has a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy and who offers to buy on terms stipulated by the owner and the owner refuses to carry out the trade, it is not generally necessary, in order for the broker or agent to recover the commissions, that the proposed purchaser should make to the proposed vendor an actual tender of the purchase price. Smith v. Tatum, 140 Ga. 719, 79 S.E. 775 (1913); Winter v. Flournoy Realty Co., 27 Ga. App. 87, 107 S.E. 398 (1921); Carter v. Ray, 70 Ga. App. 419, 28 S.E.2d 361 (1943).
Principal cannot defeat broker's right by having sale made to corporation instead of principal.
- Fact that a corporation organized by the defendant for the purpose of purchasing certain property in deed bought the property did not affect the plaintiff's right to recover for the services performed by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant, as the defendant could not form a corporation and purchase the property through it directly from the owner so as to defeat the plaintiff's right to compensation for the plaintiff's services. Erwin v. Wender, 78 Ga. App. 94, 50 S.E.2d 244 (1948).
Sale by stockholders does not make corporation liable.
- Subsequent actual sale by the several stockholders of the defendant corporation of their individual holdings of corporate stock, being an individual and not a corporate act, could not form the basis of an action for commissions against the corporation. F.L. Allison & Co. v. McMath Plantation Co., 29 Ga. App. 414, 115 S.E. 916 (1923).
Broker's right to commissions does not depend on performance by purchaser.
- Right of a real estate broker to the broker's commissions does not depend upon the carrying out and fully performing of the contract of sale by the purchaser. Payne v. Ponder, 139 Ga. 283, 77 S.E. 32 (1913).
When an agent employed to sell certain real estate for the owner at a stipulated price procures a purchaser who is accepted by the owner and a contract is entered into between them, the commission of such agent is earned, provided the agent acted in good faith towards the agent's principal in the transaction, although the purchaser later defaults for no reason caused by the agent. Cox v. Dolvin Realty Co., 56 Ga. App. 649, 193 S.E. 467 (1937).
Purchaser's refusal to consummate contract does not prevent recovery by broker.
- Agent will not be prevented from recovering commissions for obtaining a purchaser who is accepted in furtherance of which a binding contract is made, though the purchaser deliberately refuses to consummate the contract. Cox v. Dolvin Realty Co., 56 Ga. App. 649, 193 S.E. 467 (1937).
If the purchaser procured by the broker entered into a valid contract with the owner, whereby the purchaser became bound to buy upon the terms stipulated, and the owner became bound to sell, the broker had earned the broker's commission by virtue of such binding and completed contract, even though the purchaser, before the expiration of a reasonable time allowed to the owner to remove the lien, refused to carry out the contract to purchase. Davis v. Holbrook, 75 Ga. App. 417, 43 S.E.2d 791 (1947).
If the seller accepts the terms of the purchaser's offer by signing a sales contract, the seller has accepted the broker's procurement, and the seller cannot thereafter defeat the broker's right to a commission by refusing to close the transaction. Jones v. Trail Cities Realty, Inc., 160 Ga. App. 533, 287 S.E.2d 588 (1981).
Purchaser's inability to make title for exchange prevents recovery by broker.
- If an agent's customer agreed with the principal upon an exchange of lots and was unable to make title the agent did not earn any commission as the purchaser was not "ready, willing and able" to buy upon the terms agreed upon by the agent with the principal. Harris v. Warmack, 24 Ga. App. 600, 101 S.E. 713 (1919).
Vendee refusing to perform is liable for commission paid out by vendor.
- When vendee refused to comply with the contract to purchase property and vendor paid the broker the commission, the vendor was then entitled to maintain an action against the vendee for damages for a breach of the contract in the amount of the commission so paid by the vendor. Smith v. Knight, 75 Ga. App. 178, 42 S.E.2d 570 (1947).
Unconsummated sale does not bar commission.
- Fact that a sale is never actually consummated does not bar recovery of commissions unless the owner agreed that payment of commissions was contingent upon such, and unless the failure to consummate the sale is not the fault of the owner. Steinemann v. Vaughn & Co., 169 Ga. App. 573, 313 S.E.2d 701 (1983).
Broker is not guarantor of purchaser's financial ability or performance.
- If the plaintiff occupied the status of broker (as distinguished from a sales agent), and as such procured a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy on terms agreeable to the seller, plaintiff would not, in the absence of a contractual undertaking, become a guarantor either of the financial ability of the purchaser or of the subsequent performance by the purchaser of the offer to buy, especially if the seller actually accepted the offer, and accordingly, the seller was not entitled to a recoupment in suit by broker for commissions on three cars of peanuts actually delivered and accepted by the purchaser, because, on account of a drop in the market price of the commodity, the fourth car in the order was countermanded and refused. Farmers Peanut Co. v. Zimmerman-Alderson Carr Co., 52 Ga. App. 265, 183 S.E. 115 (1935).
Agent must act in good faith.
- Agent is not an insurer of the ability of the purchasers procured by the agent, if the purchasers are accepted as satisfactory by the principal and binding contracts of sale are made by the principal with such purchasers; but the agent is bound to act in good faith towards the principal. Williamson, Inman & Co. v. Thompson, 50 Ga. App. 564, 179 S.E. 289 (1935).
Agent's bad faith not waived by entering into contract or seeking to enforce it.
- Neither entering into contract to sell nor futile attempts to enforce a contract would be such conduct as would waive the seller's right to defend against the agent's suit for commissions on the grounds of the agent's bad faith, if the enforcement of the contract involves a determination of whether the representation of the buyer's financial ability was true or not. Reisman v. Massey, 84 Ga. App. 796, 67 S.E.2d 585 (1951).
Principal may recover compensation paid if broker obtains contract by fraud and then substitutes purchaser.
- If, by the terms of the contract of agency, the agent, as a real estate broker, is to procure a purchaser of property belonging to the principal, and the agent by exceeding the agent's authority and misrepresenting the property perpetrates a fraud upon the purchaser and thereby obtains an unenforceable contract with the purchaser, and on account of the fraud the contract is rescinded by the purchaser, and the agent knowingly, and without the principal's knowledge, substitutes as purchaser one who the principal believes is an agent of the purchaser whom the agent had procured, the agent thereby fails to act in good faith with the principal, and the principal is entitled to recover from the agent compensation for the services which the principal had paid to the agent in ignorance of the fraud of the agent in obtaining the contract, and in ignorance of the purchaser's rescission of the contract. Rood v. Anchors, 42 Ga. App. 76, 155 S.E. 65 (1930).
Telling owner purchaser must pay commissions does not create dual agency barring recovery.
- There was no such dual agency unknown to both principals as would defeat the right of the plaintiff to commission, when the defendant-owner was told that the purchaser of the property in question would have to pay the commissions. Erwin v. Wender, 78 Ga. App. 94, 50 S.E.2d 244 (1948).
Contract ambiguity.
- Grant of summary judgment for the realty company was error since the contract was ambiguous as to whether the real estate commission was refundable once the property sale failed to close, and a question of material fact existed as to the parties' intent on that issue; the issue could not be resolved by application of the rules of contract construction, O.C.G.A. § 13-2-3, nor by parol evidence, O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2. Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 625 S.E.2d 435 (2005).
Practice and Procedure
1. Pleading
Ability of purchaser should be alleged.
- Under this section, the ability to comply, that is that one is solvent and one's compliance can be compelled or the question of one's solvency has been waived, of the purchaser accepted by the principal and afterwards refusing to comply with the contract should be alleged. Harvil v. Wilson Bros., 11 Ga. App. 156, 74 S.E. 845 (1912); Wilson Bros. v. Verner, 12 Ga. App. 511, 77 S.E. 656 (1913).
Allegation of what occurred between purchasers and defendants.
- Plaintiffs should allege the facts as to what occurred between the defendant and the prospective purchasers upon which the plaintiffs rely in support of the plaintiffs' claim for commissions. McMath Plantation Co. v. F.L. Allison & Co., 26 Ga. App. 744, 107 S.E. 420 (1921).
Alleging direction to sign contract does not make action one on written contract of sale.
- Allegations that clients directed agent to sign a written contract and that client would send a check as earnest money are not necessary to the cause of action whereby a licensed real estate dealer sues for commissions and will not establish the action as a suit upon a written contract to purchase real estate. Pierce v. Deich, 81 Ga. App. 717, 59 S.E.2d 755 (1950).
Only one count need be sufficient.
- In an action against the principal by the broker to recover commissions which was brought in two counts, each for the same amount, one count alleging a contract by which the broker was to procure a contract of sale between the broker's principal and the purchaser and the other count alleging that the plaintiff earned the commission under a brokerage contract by obtaining a customer ready, willing, and able to purchase the property and who actually offered to purchase upon the terms stipulated by the owner, when the verdict found for the plaintiff is sustainable under the second count, it is immaterial that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict under the first count by reason of the contract of sale necessary to support such verdict being for any reason invalid as by an insufficient description therein of the land purported to be sold. Knowles v. Haas & Dodd, 70 Ga. App. 715, 29 S.E.2d 312 (1944).
Plaintiff's allegations held sufficient.
- See Payne v. Ponder, 139 Ga. 283, 77 S.E. 32 (1913); McKenzie v. Patterson, 27 Ga. App. 465, 109 S.E. 174 (1921).
Alleging contract for commission under this section from first payment and a first payment states a cause of action. Luckey v. Daniels, 25 Ga. App. 164, 102 S.E. 902 (1920).
If the plaintiff specifically alleges the existence and duration of the broker's agency, the property listed for sale, the terms of compensation for the performance of the broker's services, the terms of sale stipulated by the owner and the procurement by the broker of a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy on such terms, and a refusal by the seller to pay the broker's commission in accordance with their contract, the plaintiff's pleading is not subject to dismissal. Norwood v. Robie, 102 Ga. App. 206, 115 S.E.2d 729 (1960).
Plaintiff's pleading is not subject to dismissal because the pleading seeks to recover on an oral agreement for the performance of services by the broker or because the pleading does not allege that the transaction has been closed by a conveyance and payment of the purchase price. Norwood v. Robie, 102 Ga. App. 206, 115 S.E.2d 729 (1960).
If a real estate sales contract provides that the broker is made a party thereto to enforce the broker's commission rights and that liability for the commission can be based on the "seller's inability, failure, or refusal to convey" an allegation that the seller "fails and refuses" to close the transaction is sufficient. Nussbaum v. Shaffer, 105 Ga. App. 430, 124 S.E.2d 658 (1962).
Plaintiff's allegations held insufficient.
- By virtue of this section, if an action for a commission on a sale of land is based upon a contract authorizing the plaintiff to sell the land for the defendant for a fixed price per acre within a specified time, and it does not appear from the plaintiff's allegations that the plaintiff procured a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy at the price stipulated, or that during the life of the contract there was such interference on the part of the defendant as to prevent a sale of the property, or any secret agreement, collusion, or mutual understanding between the defendant and the prospective buyer, while negotiations were pending, to delay the consummation of the trade until after the expiration of the contract, the allegations are insufficient, even though it is alleged that immediately after the expiration of the contract (time being of the essence) the defendant sold the property to one who had been negotiating with the plaintiff. Price v. Cocke, 23 Ga. App. 578, 99 S.E. 47 (1919).
In a suit to recover commissions alleged to be due under a broker's contract, if the plaintiff's pleading fails to show that the plaintiff produced a purchaser who was ready, able, and willing to buy the property placed in the plaintiff's hands for sale, on the terms prescribed by the owner, the court does not err in dismissing the pleading. Montgomery v. Lester, 25 Ga. App. 660, 104 S.E. 28 (1920).
Alleging efforts by a broker to sell property and that the broker interested certain persons and by the broker's efforts created a demand for the property, making it possible for the owner to sell to one not alleged to have been interested by the broker, does not state a cause of action. Corker v. Simmons, 26 Ga. App. 515, 106 S.E. 558 (1921).
Allegation that the "plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale" is a mere conclusion of the pleader when not sustained by the facts stated by the plaintiff and the court does not err in dismissing the plaintiff's pleading. Craigmiles v. Steyerman, 27 Ga. App. 14, 107 S.E. 386 (1921).
Cause of action for commissions earned is not alleged if it does not appear that a purchaser was procured who actually offered to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner. Frederick May & Co. v. B. Karpf, Inc., 80 Ga. App. 1, 54 S.E.2d 916 (1949).
Answer alleging defense of broker's bad faith.
- Answer alleging that the plaintiff broker misrepresented the financial ability of the buyer, that is, that the buyer was ready, willing, and able to buy on the terms stipulated by the seller, thereby inducing the defendant to accept the buyer's offer and to enter into a contract which the buyer was unable to perform, set out a breach of the broker's duty of exercising the utmost good faith toward the principal, the seller, which was a defense to the broker's action for commissions. Reisman v. Massey, 84 Ga. App. 796, 67 S.E.2d 585 (1951).
2. Burden of Proof
Burden on broker of showing all requirements of section.
- Under the general rule stated in this section, ordinarily the burden of showing all the requirements recited is on the broker in an action for commissions. Phinizy v. Bush, 129 Ga. 479, 59 S.E. 259 (1907).
Burden of proving defense of purchaser's inability.
- If the customer procured by the broker is accepted by the principal, the burden will be upon the latter to show that such purchaser was not able to comply with the contract, if the purchaser relies on that defense. Phinizy v. Bush, 129 Ga. 479, 59 S.E. 259 (1907).
Proof of conspiracy.
- In order to establish that a conspiracy existed to deprive the broker of a real estate broker's commission, a party must show that the commission was earned; that the broker, as the plaintiff-broker, has been the procuring or efficient cause of the ultimate sale; and that there has been a wrongful interference with the broker and the purchaser. Having shown that the broker was the procuring cause of the sale, the plaintiff broker must then demonstrate that the sellers actually knew that the purchaser may have been procured by the broker. Hodges-Ward Assocs. v. Ecclestone, 156 Ga. App. 59, 273 S.E.2d 872 (1980).
3. Questions for Jury or Court
Whether broker has produced a purchaser during the term of the agency is an issue of fact. Ocean Lake & River Fish Co. v. Dotson, 70 Ga. App. 268, 28 S.E.2d 319 (1943).
Which broker's efforts were procuring cause.
- If the services of a broker, as well as those of another broker, have conjointly contributed to the successful termination of negotiations resulting in the sale of real estate for an owner, it becomes a question of fact as to which broker was the proximate, predominating, and procuring cause of the sale. Gresham v. Lee, 152 Ga. 829, 111 S.E. 404, answers conformed to, 28 Ga. App. 576, 112 S.E. 524 (1922); Nicholson v. Smith & Son, 29 Ga. App. 376, 115 S.E. 499 (1923); City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Orr, 39 Ga. App. 217, 146 S.E. 795 (1929).
Whether contract applied to property is for jury.
- Issue whether contract as to commissions applied to goods accepted but not delivered was for jury, not court. Interstate Chem. Corp. v. Slade & Treadwell, 20 Ga. App. 776, 93 S.E. 422 (1917).
Reasonable time.
- If no time is specified for a real estate agent to procure a ready, willing, and able purchaser, under the agency contract what would be a reasonable time is for the jury to determine under all the facts and circumstances of the case. Wood v. Planzer, 73 Ga. App. 731, 37 S.E.2d 813 (1946).
If a contract between the owner of real estate and the real estate agent for the sale of property specified no time limit, and the commitment to purchase property by the purchaser was obtained ten days after the contract was made, and the sale was made by the agent on the terms stated less than three months from the date of the owner's contract with the agent, the jury is authorized to find that the agent has earned a commission under the contract. Wood v. Planzer, 73 Ga. App. 731, 37 S.E.2d 813 (1946).
Whether broker made attempt to perform.
- Under provisions in a broker's contract for sale under the terms stipulated "or any other terms acceptable to me," a bona fide attempt to procure an offer to buy for a lesser price is sufficient to constitute performance, and whether or not such performance has occurred is a jury question. Stone v. Reinhard, 124 Ga. App. 355, 183 S.E.2d 601 (1971).
If a promise as stated in a contract is "to list, offer for sale, and endeavor to sell" upon the terms stated in the contract or any other terms acceptable to the owner, and the plaintiff's affidavit shows that there were efforts to find prospects, show the prospects the property, and relay offers to the owner, it is a jury question whether or not there was such compliance with the contract as to entitle the plaintiff to commissions. Stone v. Reinhard, 124 Ga. App. 355, 183 S.E.2d 601 (1971).
Whether a sales agent breaches a fiduciary duty to the seller by working in concert with the agent's spouse, the purchaser, in the negotiations and execution of the sales contract is a question of fact for the court. Paredes v. Bud Bailey Corp., 160 Ga. App. 572, 287 S.E.2d 620 (1981).
Verdict for defendant required as matter of law.
- If in a suit by a broker for commission it appears that the plaintiff never produced a customer who was ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offered to buy on the terms expressly stipulated by the defendant, the owner of the property in question, that prior to the sale of the property by the defendant personally to one who had been introduced to the defendant by the plaintiff's agent as its prospect, the negotiations between such prospect and the plaintiff had come to an end, and that the defendant had not at any time interfered with the efforts of the plaintiff to effect a sale during the agency, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded as a matter of law. Landrum v. Lipscomb-Ellis Co., 62 Ga. App. 649, 9 S.E.2d 205 (1940).
4. Instructions
Owner's right to sell.
- Since there was an issue of fact as to whether a broker was employed to sell property or the broker's acts ratified, and it appeared that the owner sold the property personally, without the broker's aid, to a purchaser with whom the broker negotiated, the court should have charged pursuant to this section that placing the property in the hands of a broker did not prevent the owner from selling unless otherwise agreed. Folds v. Lifsey Co., 26 Ga. App. 297, 105 S.E. 854 (1921).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agency, § 112 et seq.
C.J.S.- 2A C.J.S., Agency, § 334 et seq.
ALR.
- Does ordinary broker's contract exclude right of sale by owner, 10 A.L.R. 814; 20 A.L.R. 1268.
Right of one selling on commission as affected by principal's refusal to fill order, 12 A.L.R. 150.
Duration of real estate broker's contract which specifies no time, 24 A.L.R. 1537; 28 A.L.R. 893.
Broker's right to commission as affected by failure to consummate sale within time limited by terms of employment, 26 A.L.R. 784.
Rights and remedies upon cancelation of sales agency, 32 A.L.R. 209; 52 A.L.R. 546; 89 A.L.R. 252.
Broker's right to commission where owner sells property to customer of broker at less than stipulated price, 43 A.L.R. 1103; 46 A.L.R.2d 848.
Character and extent of right of broker who has exclusive contract, where sale is effected without his agency, 64 A.L.R. 395.
Right, under contract of employment providing for commissions based on amounts collected, to commissions on amounts collected after termination of employment or discharge for cause, upon business effected during term, 65 A.L.R. 993.
Right of real estate broker to list competing properties of different owners, 71 A.L.R. 699.
Acceptance by principal of services of broker with knowledge that he acted also for the other party as affecting broker's right to compensation, 80 A.L.R. 1075.
Illegality of transaction or proposed transaction as affecting right of real estate broker to commission for promoting it, 85 A.L.R. 274.
Right of real estate broker against third person who prevented broker from earning commissions, or who received, or induced owner to pay to him or another, commission which the broker had earned, 97 A.L.R. 1273; 146 A.L.R. 1417.
Duty and liability of former employee to former employer in respect of transactions or matters pending and uncompleted at termination of employment, 100 A.L.R. 684.
Principal's right to recover commissions paid by him or by third person to unfaithful agent or broker, 134 A.L.R. 1346.
Necessity of specially pleading revocation of authority as defense to action for broker's commission, 144 A.L.R. 694.
Real estate broker's right to commissions, under contract calling for net price or entitling broker to all above a specified price, where sale is not completed because of refusal or fault of owner, 144 A.L.R. 921.
Real estate broker's right to compensation as affected by death of person employing him, 146 A.L.R. 828.
Real estate broker's right to recover damages in tort upon ground that he was wrongfully prevented from earning or collecting commissions, 146 A.L.R. 1417.
Construction and application of statute which enables real estate broker to recover commissions on oral contract with owner who has been served with written notice of the terms thereof, 148 A.L.R. 676.
Failure, when refusing offer to purchase land, to state ground therefor as affecting right to assert such ground in defense of broker's action for compensation, 156 A.L.R. 602.
Right of real estate broker under listing contract providing for compensation if sale is made during listing period, where contract or incipient negotiations for sale with customer not produced by broker are not consummated within that period, 160 A.L.R. 1048.
Broker's right to compensation as affected by the fact that customer procured by him joined with another in the purchase of the property involved, 164 A.L.R. 949.
Rights and obligations of real estate broker employed to sell property as affected by option to purchase for himself, 164 A.L.R. 1378.
Right of real estate broker, employed to effect or consummate sale, to compensation where principal refuses or is unable to complete transaction, 169 A.L.R. 605.
Condemnation of property as affecting real estate broker's right to compensation, 170 A.L.R. 1422.
Relative rights and liabilities of vendor and his broker to down payment or earnest money forfeited by vendee for default under real estate contract, 9 A.L.R.2d 495.
Real estate broker's right to commission where purchaser refuses to go through with executory contract because of reckless misrepresentation made to him by broker respecting property, 9 A.L.R.2d 504.
Statutory necessity and sufficiency of written statement as to amount of compensation in broker's contract to procure purchase, sale, or exchange of real estate, 9 A.L.R.2d 747.
Broker's right to commission where customer repudiates or fails to complete contract or promise which is oral or not specifically enforceable, 12 A.L.R.2d 1410.
Effect of statement of real estate broker to prospective purchaser that property may be bought for less than list price as breach of duty to vendor, so as to bar claim for commission, 17 A.L.R.2d 904.
What deviation in prospective vendee's proposal from vendor's terms precludes broker from recovering commission for producing a ready, willing, and able vendee, 18 A.L.R.2d 376.
Broker's right to commission on sales consummated after termination of employment, 27 A.L.R.2d 1348.
Agreement between brokers as within statute requiring agreements for commissions for the sale of real estate to be in writing, 44 A.L.R.2d 741.
Conveyance of real property to mortgagee or lienholder as constituting "sale or exchange" rendering owner liable for commissions to broker having exclusive agency or exclusive right to sell, 46 A.L.R.2d 1116.
Broker's right to commission for selling part of property, 47 A.L.R.2d 680.
Broker's return of deposit to purchaser as waiver of right to demand commission from seller, 69 A.L.R.2d 1244.
Broker's right to commission on sale rejected by principal because of buyer's fraud or mispresentation, 79 A.L.R.2d 1055.
Broker's right to commission on renewal, extension, or renegotiation of lease, 79 A.L.R.2d 1063.
"Exclusive right to sell" and other terms in real estate broker's contract as excluding owner's right of sale, 88 A.L.R.2d 936.
Real estate broker's right to compensation as affected by failure or refusal of principal's spouse to join in contract of sale, 10 A.L.R.3d 665.
Validity, construction, and enforcement of business opportunities or "finder's fee" contract, 24 A.L.R.3d 1160.
Liability of purchaser of real estate for interference with contract between vendor and real estate broker, 29 A.L.R.3d 1229.
Liability of defaulting purchaser to owner's broker or auctioneer, 30 A.L.R.3d 1395.
Broker's right to commission from principal upon procuring third party taking an option, 32 A.L.R.3d 321.
Right of real estate broker to commission where listing contract is for sale of property and it is subsequently leased to one with whom broker had negotiated, 42 A.L.R.3d 1430.
Validity, construction, and effect of real estate brokers' multiple-listing agreement, 45 A.L.R.3d 190.
Right of mortgage broker to commission where principal violated conditions of agreement, 45 A.L.R.3d 1326.
Construction of provision in real estate broker's listing contract that broker shall receive commission on sale after expiration of listing period to one with whom broker has "negotiated" during listing period, 51 A.L.R.3d 1149.
Real estate broker's right to commission for procuring lessee, where lease terminates before contemplated term, 54 A.L.R.3d 1171.
Validity, construction, and effect of provision in exclusive listing agreement for payment of commission on termination by owner, 69 A.L.R.3d 1270.
Modern view as to right of real estate broker to recover commission from seller-principal where buyer defaults under valid contract of sale, 12 A.L.R.4th 1083.
What constitutes financial ability to perform within rule entitling broker to commission for producing ready, willing and able purchaser of real property, 87 A.L.R.4th 11.