listing agreement september fifteenth two thousand and five the buyer came in met with the seller came out of the farm walked around the property and the buyer indicated that the seller indicated he didn't want t commission he said that there is a six month time frame for paying the commission and he gave the seller rate gave me a buyer his phone number and basically said don't call me back for six months he ended up property at a higher price than what the listing agreement was there was a change in land by you during that timeframe and the so you say your position is the worth of this property being sold was through a if he also said that he wasn't interested that in the property at the time he came out there which seems odd that he would travel out to the property in the middle county to go see the property it also seems odd that he then would have calendar the six month timeframe on his calendar when he got home and recounting to get this in as a six month time frame came up but the buyer did say that he had interest in another piece of property at some time i don't think that that's  really that significant if you just look at the procuring cause case law in that the broker who was clearly the person that procured this sale that got these two together they consummated the sale within a reasonable time after the expiration of  because it was a bench trial there's a potential that there's a more deferential standard of review it appears though from the cases that there's a two prong process where they first look and see the plaint f prevent present a prima facie case and if not that portion of the claim or the directed verdict or the motion for judgment by the defendant is reviewed and overall if on the other hand the trial court said stays and starts weighing the evidence then there's a more deferential manifest way that the evidence in this case the trial judge called a directed verdict in his ruling says taking the evidence in favor of viewing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party i'm finding for the defendant it doesn't sound like if you look at his ruling he made any credibility or weighing of the evidence decisions which i think would fall into the don't know standard of review well arguably maybe maybe not well even if it doesn't i think that we're still on solid footing on this appeal based on his specific findings in his ruling he specifically found that the seller delayed court found no evidence that there was a delight to avoid paying a commission and in this particular case the judge's ruling his findings were that the defendant delayed the sale in order to  matter of law in the firm law is off the record fine it should be in favor of you're absolutely i mean i think that you look at the judge's findings of what happened and i think that's clearly what happened when you look at the evidence in the testimony at the trial this is exactly the kind of case that the procurement was designed to address i mean what it isn't is based on unjust enrichment and what it is is we are not making you never never filed a breach of contract claim when i think we have a right within a reasonable time after that time runs out they resume negotiations here it's right that i mean there's a six month mark and within a month of that we don't know the exact date but it would have been end of march early april is when the other basically stated that if this agent wanted to commission he could have made a contract that basically said i get a commission the matter with anybody that i find by is the property  we're not asking for that we don't think we need that but i think that sort of shows that the judge may have been looking more at this is a breach of contract pays than the contract doesn't provide the remedy in that's not what we're saying at all it also seem like they don't want to be out three years a year down the road if they come back that's probably going to be stretching i don't think we're going to have a word that we have to structured in this particular case because the buyer market on his calendar and six months on the six month ran he contacted future with no no no no i would agree with that and i don't think the law establishes and i don't think the law needs to establish some certain date or some sort of rule of one year six months nine months three months two years i think that  takes into consideration a reasonable time for workers and i think in this particular case the seller again made contact right after the six month grace period  no i don't think that no and i don't think that the the procurement cases don't require a step to prove that i mean that would be a breach of contract law if they did that if if in fact they had ready willing and able during the time of told the court that the broker said that the offers were relayed to the buyer or to the seller and the seller rejected this was relatively new real estate sales agent but he was he was interested in earning his commission have beyond finding out about the property and their net website the buyer than context agent patience and some additional information on the buyer and the agent needed the property walk around the farm show the property and then there's negotiations through the agent with the  l so i think we have more than that but yes i think going to hear a legal there at a theory yes i think that if the agent does show that identify the property on the website and then the seller finds it through now hopefully understand the question i think then this will listing agreement had a seven hundred forty two thousand dollars price is what if that offer was made during the contract timeframe the buyer or the seller was agreeing to contacted the seller again after the six month time frame in the seller told the buyer hey prices have been going up out here the buyer then said well i might need some assistance with financing they talk back and forth about contract for going to pay more and i agree i don't think there was any illusion between the virus seller i think what there was was an agreement they were not going to go to negotiate with me until that six month timeframe because i don't want to pick a mission but as far as the benefit goes i think there's even a bigger benefit to the buyer i mean the viral or not to the buyer to the seller she's the seller wanted to clear six hundred ninety thousand dollars i think if he pays a seven percent commission on this he would still clear sixty fifty sixty thousand more than what he wanted to do  was more than the property was even mr yes that's correct and i again i don't know if you want to say based on whatever tom and other i mean i think that was based on real estate on the country having a significant jump so i think there could be a good argument by the seller that women should be for seven percent we argue that he gets the benefit of the bargain unjust enrichment he doesn't give the men for the bargain he gets he gets the benefit of our work that we prepare cases cited by the seller are pretty easily distinguishable in regards to the facts of this case but the other cases also to show more continuing negotiations of the point out as far as the cases that are favorable to pages in the transcript and he made a thorough discussion of what he saw as the issues and made his findings and i don't think we can you know in a cold transcript necessarily here viewing asked him for his phone that's one distinction that i want to point out i think that's important because you know obviously you know in in the most general sense the claim has been made that the brokers and it is not enough that this gentleman from the chicago suburbs saw this piece of property on the internet and that that was the impetus for him to come look at there's no dispute that her broker shows m zimmerman around the property was in late may early june of two thousand and five to our first don't know if they were submitted to my final not to offer her mate who offers rejected judgeship it was absolutely meeting that his daughter was going to college he was buying her house he was no longer interested in purchasing probably couldn't afford and then there was some evidence that there was some testimony that shortly after the expiration of the initial term that the agent contacted mr zimmerman and mr zimmerman said i'm looking at property in ogle county and not exist that has nothing to do with my those are independent intervene statements as moni vance or whatever we want to call that break any causal connection between my client as i've been saying playing games kristol and then there's mr zimmerman later on testified that he contacted my client again after offers to but again i think that that that is why just holdridge why i say that i think the standard of review is very important because judge ship what was was sitting there assessing the testimony and the credibility of witnesses and under the manifest weight of the evidence standard it certainly seems that justice judge shipload concluded well this gentleman was interested in other grounds he moved on when his efforts to purchase other ground  otherwise you wouldn't be here that's correct ok it's a i would say it's a it's a complete beginning to end it's a ten month window that's right yes yes so where were the brother who's testifying as to the magnetic calendar on  that i made that if you if you're mr zimmer if you're the if you're really interested if you really think that that property is is something you can buy you get on the phone and even if you don't make it happen within those eight hours you eat you latch onto it like a dog on a bone and you don't let it go and if you get it done the next week you get on the next week or the next to each you get a gun and then there would be this unbroken he did not he did not there was some evidence and the it was in testimony in the record again from the buyer because my client case was never put on he never testified  the buyer left my client's property in mid september two thousand five hundred almost perception that that property was just not for sale if i was interested in selling it it was also testimony that my quietly listed originally because the you're both i'm glad you raised that issue because that was kind of what i was going to transition into next with my comments and you know if you if you look if we look at the case  nationally i think a review of the cases cited by mr brennan his clients are actually very instructive by way of contrast if you look at the ben i don't i don't mean the more your honors were with all the details of a one of those decisions but if you look at those decisions there is an agent who is doing something string never gets broken might get broken for a little bit not very long the brokers following up he posted on these negotiations that you're now doing by yourself you know to the client well actually there are in these have the money right now i'm looking at other ground in noble county that there is no email there's no evidence of even text message phone call letters in person here where there is some dialogue between virus so yes yes yes and you're saying my clients that i have eight hours in understandable when they have more money if there was no permission then in other words the sub that the buyer offer the same price and no commission there be more money in the pocket so davis where they just talk about how you know the efforts of an agent may ultimately lead down the line to  address a few points of him up there in that argument first off there was a point of why didn't the buyer contact the seller after that september fifteenth day till march of next year well if you look listing and inquired if it was for still for sale mr personally said yes through my agent for another eight hours after that i'm not selling for six months because i'm not commit i mean if he's not selling for six months because he's not  commission i don't think a buyer is going to be on the phone trying to sell and make a deal i mean he's wait until it's six months runs which is why he goes back the buyer puts it on his calendar on his the fridge market to call back in six months when six months runs he contacts seller and they begin the goshi ations for the sale as far as a the actual agreement goes what it was was that there was a four month listing agreement a september fifteenth may fifteenth september fifteenth and then after that there's a six month grace period during the grace period if the buyer or if a buyer who was brought to the seller by the broker sells a price that's when the broker gets a commission and that's the contractual right during that grace period i think the court clearly found that the seller was trying to avoid payment of commission told the buyer don't call me for six months six months runs the buyer context sell the buyer read the contract into the contract rules but he didn't realize the concept of procurement that's out there by the courts in equity to try and keep somebody from taking advantage of a real estate agent who goes out finds a that was brought up a number of times by both and counsel shower it was not a directed verdict case it was after a trial and i'm not even if salary was a procurement case if you actually look at the shower decision they never talk about well the complaint what their ear was coming forward there is a subheading above the discussion about procurement that says contract line which makes it sound like it was a contract and then the the most significant point is in salary at the trial court main findings that it wasn't clear when the listing agreement was or oh it wasn't clear from the evidence as to whether the prior buyer going contact with the sell there as far as the davis decision that's another decision sided by the defendant that goes back to eight hundred eighty eight and in that particular case there was a broker broker did not get the sale done and then year later there's a different broker that steps in and they suggest trading the property instead of selling the property i don't think that that is in any way anything that undermines the finding of procurement in the commission for land in this particular  cases where the court found there was sufficient evidence of a directed verdict should not have been granted in that case it wasn't real clear it was the sale of a toyota from pretoria a lot of the oriya and it was some contact with one person who may