Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): whether a broker is entitled to a commission for condemnation of property should be analyzed according to ordinary contract principles, including those applicable to oral contracts and contract modification. The focus should be on the agreed scope of the broker’s employment, not on extraneous factors such as when the state should take possession. We now discuss those principles and apply them to this case. B. Applying Contract Principles An oral contract, such as the one in this case, is subject to the basic requirements of contract law such as offer, acceptance, consideration and sufficient spe t a contract of employment between a broker and a principal may be oral or written); 12 Am.Jur.2d Brokers § 51 (1997) (same); cf. Futch v. Head, 511 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). Applying these principles to brokerage 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sufficient evidence existed of an enforceable oral commission agreement between a broker and a cobroker and sustaining the verdict (B) holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract (C) holding that oral listing agreement did not preclude recovery of a commission (D) holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified (E) holding that broker whose contract called for commission on sale of property was not entitled to commission on transfer of property to partnership in which owner had an interest and that because broker was not entitled to commission under terms of his contract he also could not recover against a third person on theory of tortious interference with that contract
Output (English): holding that oral listing agreement did not preclude recovery of a commission