Title: ASSOCIATED AGENCY OF BOZEMAN v PAS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-250 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 ASSOCIATED AGENCY OF BOZEMAN, INC., a Mont. Corp., Plaintiff and Respondent, ELVAN L. PASHA AND NANCY L. PASHA, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable W . W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Larry W. Moran, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: William L. Pepper, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: December 1 7 , 1980 Decided: HAk 4 - 1981 Filed: ft4AR 4 - 198q Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Associated Agency of Bozeman, I n c . , a r e a l e s t a t e brokerage f i r m and respondent h e r e i n , brought an a c t i o n i n t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t Court t o recover a r e a l e s t a t e s a l e s commission. A p p e l l a n t s , Elvan and Nancy Pasha, denied t h a t Associated Agency had complied w i t h t h e terms of its e x c l u s i v e l i s t i n g agreement and a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y were j u s t i f i e d i n t e r m i n a t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t . Following t r i a l , t h e c o u r t r e f u s e d t o e n t e r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n a p p e l l a n t s ' f a v o r . The j u r y t h e n r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t and judgment i n f a v o r of respondent. Elvan and Nancy Pasha were t h e owners of a farm l o c a t e d near Bozeman, Montana. For t h e purpose of s e l l i n g t h i s p r o p e r t y , t h e y e n t e r e d i n t o a s t a n d a r d r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t , d a t e d May 27, 1977, employing A s s o c i a t e d Agency a s t h e i r a g e n t . The c o n t r a c t g a v e A s s o c i a t e d Agency a t h r e e - m o n t h e x c l u s i v e l i s t i n g and provided t h a t t h e Pashas would pay a 6 p e r c e n t commission i f A s s o c i a t e d should f i n d a buyer " r e a d y , w i l l i n g and a b l e t o e n t e r i n t o a d e a l f o r s a i d p r i c e and terms." The l i s t i n g p r i c e was $450,000, w i t h terms " t o be arranged--prefer exchange f o r c a t t l e ranch." The Pashas a l s o agreed t o pay t h e commission i f t h e ranch was s o l d w i t h i n 180 days of t h e August 27, 1977, e x p i r a t i o n d a t e . During t h e p e r i o d t h e l i s t i n g was agreement was i n e f f e c t , Associated Agency, through its broker/agent Randy White, produced two s e p a r a t e buyers w i l l i n g t o purchase t h e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e f u l l purchase p r i c e . The Pashas r e j e c t e d t h e o f f e r s , however, i n d i c a t i n g t h e y would " p r e f e r " an exchange of p r o p e r t y and n o t a c a s h purchase. A f t e r t h e f i r s t l i s t i n g agreement e x p i r e d , t h e p a r t i e s signed a n o t h e r employment c o n t r a c t . The c o n t r a c t e x t e n d e d A s s o c i a t e d Agency's e x c l u s i v e l i s t i n g t o December 27, 1977, and was i d e n t i c a l i n terms t o t h e f i r s t agreement. I n August 1977 a ranch f o r s a l e was l o c a t e d f o r which t h e Pashas were i n t e r e s t e d i n t r a d i n g . T h i s p r o p e r t y was owned c o l l e c t i v e l y by David R. M a t t i , Margaret M a t t i , David F. M a t t i and Judy L. M a t t i . The Pashas proposed t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e r s found by A s s o c i a t e d , who wished t o buy t h e Pasha p r o p e r t y , purchase i n s t e a d t h e M a t t i p r o p e r t y and t h e n exchange it f o r t h e Pasha p r o p e r t y . The M a t t i s , Pashas, Randy White and t h e proposed p u r c h a s e r s , H. B. Landoe and F. Delbrook L i c h t e n b e r g , met and d i s c u s s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of e f f e c t u a t i n g an exchange. Subsequent t o t h i s meeting, Lichtenberg and Landoe made two o f f e r s t o purchase t h e Pasha p r o p e r t y f o r t h e f u l l purchase p r i c e , s u b j e c t t o completing t h e M a t t i exchange. N e i t h e r t h e M a t t i s nor t h e Pashas, however, signed t h e e a r n e s t money r e c e i p t and agreement t o s e l l and purchase n e c e s s a r y t o complete t h e s a l e . On o r about November 16, 1977, i n Helena, Montana, another meeting was held t o work o u t t h e d e t a i l s of a p o s s i b l e e x c h a n g e o f t h e P a s h a and M a t t i p r o p e r t i e s . P r e s e n t a t t h i s meeting were David F. M a t t i , Judy M a t t i , Landoe, L i c h t e n b e r g , and J o e Gray, who had joined Landoe and Lichtenberg a s i n t e r e s t e d p u r c h a s e r s of t h e Pasha p r o p e r t y . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e meeting, t h e Pashas produced a proposal prepared by t h e i r a t t o r n e y o u t l i n i n g t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s of an exchange t h a t would be a g r e e a b l e t o them. The Pasha p r o p o s a l was s e t up i n v a r i o u s s t a g e s and provided t h e following: (1) Matti w i l l d i v i d e h i s p r o p e r t y i n t o T r a c t s A and ( 2 ) Matti w i l l then convey both t r a c t s t o Landoe and Lichtenberg (L & L ) , who w i l l execute a $180,000 mortgage on T r a c t A and a $320,000 mortgage on T r a c t B. ( 3 ) L & L w i l l t h e n convey T r a c t A t o Pasha who w i l l assume payment of t h e $180,000 mortgage. I n a d d i t i o n , L & L w i l l convey T r a c t B t o Pasha f r e e and c l e a r i n exchange f o r t h e e n t i r e Pasha p r o p e r t y which is s u b j e c t t o a $130,000 F e d e r a l Land Bank mortgage t o be assumed by L & L. ( 4 ) M a t t i w i l l t h e n a g r e e t o r e l e a s e L b L from t h e $180,000 mortgage on T r a c t A which was assumed by Pasha and t o a c c e p t a s s u b s t i t u t e s e c u r i t y on t h e $320,000 mortgage on T r a c t B t h e e n t i r e Pasha p r o p e r t y r e c e i v e d by L & L. Landoe and Lichtenberg t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l p a r t i e s were i n agreement t h a t t h e exchange would t a k e p l a c e on t h e t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n t h e P a s h a p r o p o s a l . P a s h a s ' a t t o r n e y was t o p r e p a r e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e documentation w i t h t h e c l o s i n g d a t e s e t f o r November 28, 1977. M a t t i and Pasha t e s t i f i e d , however, t h a t no f i n a l d e c i s i o n was reached on how t h e exchange would a c t u a l l y t a k e p l a c e . On December 3 , 1 9 7 7 , t h e p a r t i e s had y e t t o e f f e c t u a t e an exchange of p r o p e r t y . The Pashas on t h i s d a t e s e n t a l e t t e r t o Randy White and A s s o c i a t e d Agency informing them t h a t t h e e x c l u s i v e l i s t i n g agreement between t h e two p a r t i e s was t e r m i n a t e d . A s a b a s i s f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e Pashas s t a t e d i n t h e l e t t e r t h a t White had n e g l e c t e d t o f u l f i l l h i s o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e agreement. On December 1 5 , 1977, t h e Pashas, David F. M a t t i and J o e Gray m e t i n t h e o f f i c e of P a s h a s ' a t t o r n e y . White attempted t o a t t e n d t h i s meeting on behalf of A s s o c i a t e d Agency b u t was e x c l u d e d by t h e P a s h a s . E l v a n P a s h a t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e meeting, M a t t i s t a t e d he would n o t convey T r a c t B f r e e and c l e a r a s provided i n t h e Pasha p r o p o s a l ( i . e . , would n o t a c c e p t a s s u b s t i t u t e s e c u r i t y f o r t h e $320,000 mortgage on T r a c t B t h e e n t i r e Pasha p r o p e r t y r e c e i v e d by Landoe, Lichtenberg and G r a y ) . The Pashas a p p a r e n t l y wanted t h i s p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t encumbrances because t h e y planned t o use it a s s e c u r i t y f o r a l o a n t o o b t a i n o p e r a t i o n c a p i t a l . Being unable t o o b t a i n t h e p r o p e r t y f r e e and c l e a r , t h e Pashas s t a t e d t h e y would s t i l l consummate t h e exchange t r a n s a c t i o n i f t h e y r e c e i v e d an a d d i t i o n a l $50,000 from Landoe, Lichtenberg and Gray. Gray t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Pashas o n l y wanted an e x t r a $50,000 and t h a t t h e r e s t of t h e terms of t h e p r o p o s a l would remain i n t a c t . M a t t i merely t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were unable t o a g r e e on a means t o accomplish t h e t r a d e o r s a l e s o t h e y decided n o t t o pursue f u r t h e r n e g o t i a t i o n s . A s s o c i a t e d Agency b r o u g h t s u i t i n F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 8 praying f o r a 6 p e r c e n t commission ( $ 2 7 , 0 0 0 ) , c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . I t a l l e g e d i n its complaint t h a t it had f u l l y performed under t h e l i s t i n g agreement by f i n d i n g a buyer ready, w i l l i n g and a b l e t o purchase o r exchange t h e Pasha p r o p e r t y and t h a t t h e Pashas had wrongfully t e r m i n a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t . The P a s h a s a n s w e r e d and d e n i e d t h a t Associated had complied w i t h t h e terms of t h e agreement and f u r t h e r contended t h a t t h e y were j u s t i f i e d i n t e r m i n a t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t . Subsequent t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e i r answer, t h e Pashas, on May 8, 1978, s o l d a p o r t i o n of t h e i r p r o p e r t y t o Robert and Nancy Steinman. The remainder of t h e p r o p e r t y was purcha.sed by Big West Land Company, I n c . , a c o r p o r a t i o n owned and c o n t r o l l e d by Robert Steinman. Steinman had e a r l i e r expressed an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y a f t e r it was shown t o him by Randy White. Immediately a f t e r s e l l i n g t h e i r p r o p e r t y t h e Pasha.s, on t h e same d a t e , purchased t h e M a t t i p r o p e r t y . A s s o c i a t e d A g e n c y ' s s u i t p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l . Following t r i a l t h e c a s e was submitted t o t h e j u r y . The j u r y , a f t e r d e l i b e r a t i o n , r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of A s s o c i a t e d , awarding it a commission of $27,000. The Pashas now a p p e a l . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s have been p r e s e n t e d f o r our review: 1. Whether t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s h a s been s a t i s f i e d s o a s t o p r e c l u d e a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of a p p e l l a n t s ? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o submit t o t h e j u r y a p p e l l a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n nos. 3 , 4 , 16, 17 and 18? 3 . Whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of respondent? A s t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t s a t t r i a l and on t h i s appeal make much ado over t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y never s i g n e d a binding w r i t t e n r e a l e s t a t e c o n t r a c t . Based upon t h i s f a c t , t h e y a s s e r t t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s have n o t been complied w i t h , and respondent, a s a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r , is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a commission a s a m a t t e r of law. W e must d i s a g r e e . The c o n t r a c t a t i s s u e i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s a c t i o n is a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t o r " l i s t i n g a g r e e m e n t n - - n o t an a l l e g e d u n s i g n e d o r a l r e a l e s t a t e c o n t r a c t f o r deed. T h i s l i s t i n g agreement was i n w r i t i n g and s i g n e d by a p p e l l a n t s a s t h e p a r t y c h a r g e d . A 1 1 s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s c o n t r a c t were f u l f i l l e d , and t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s h a s been complied with. See s e c t i o n 28-2-903 (1) ( e ) , MCA; C a r n e l l v. Watson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 344, 578 P.2d 308. A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court a l s o e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o submit t o t h e j u r y t h e i r proposed i n s t r u c t i o n nos. 3, 4 , 1 6 , 17 and 18. I t is n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r a t r i a l c o u r t t o r e f u s e an o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n u n l e s s such r e f u s a l a f f e c t s t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t y p r o p o s i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n , t h e r e b y p r e j u d i c i n g him. Payne v. Sorenson (197911 Mont. , 599 P.2d 362, 36 St.Rep. 1610. A p a r t y is n o t p r e j u d i c e d by a r e f u s a l of h i s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s where t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n is n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p l e a d i n g s and f a c t s , o r n o t supported by t h e evidence i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l , o r t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r is a d e q u a t e l y covered by o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s submitted t o t h e jury. Payne v. Sorenson, s u p r a ; Brown v. North Am. Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 98, 576 P.2d 711; B u t l e r Manufacturing Co. v. J & L Implement Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 167 Mont. 519, 540 P.2d 962. A p p e l l a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 3 s e t s f o r t h t h e requirement t h a t a copy of a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t must be provided t o t h e landowner a t t h e time of its e x e c u t i o n . The i n s t r u c t i o n p r o v i d e s a t r u e i n d i c a t i o n of t h e law i n Montana. The s u b j e c t m a t t e r , however, was never r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s nor has it ever c o n s t i t u t e d a l e g i t i m a t e t h e o r y of a p p e l l a n t s ' c a s e . A p p e l l a n t s admit t o e n t e r i n g i n t o and s i g n i n g t h e employment c o n t r a c t . I n s i g n i n g t h e c o n t r a c t a p p e l l a n t s c e r t i f i e d t h a t t h e y r e c e i v e d a copy of t h e a g r e e m e n t . Randy W h i t e t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t a p p e l l a n t s were i n f a c t g i v e n a copy; Elvan Pasha t e s t i f i e d he merely could n o t r e c a l l r e c e i v i n g a copy and p o s s i b l y could have l o s t it. W e f i n d no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l of proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 3 . A p p e l l a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n no. 4 s e t s f o r t h t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d requirements concerning t h e s a l e of r e a l p r o p e r t y . The c o n t r a c t a t i s s u e i n t h i s s u i t , however, is t h e r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t , n o t a c o n t r a c t f o r deed. There was never any d i s p u t e over t h e v a l i d i t y of any c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n t h a t both p a r t i e s a g r e e no s a l e was made u n t i l t h e p r o p e r t y was p u r c h a s e d by R o b e r t S t e i n m a n on May 8 , 1978. The i n s t r u c t i o n , consequently, was unnecessary, and its r e f u s a l h a s n o t p r e j u d i c e d a p p e l l a n t s s o a s t o r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l . A p p e l l a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n nos. 16, 17 and 18 d e a l w i t h c o n d i t i o n s t o be m e t under t h e employment c o n t r a c t b e f o r e t h e r e could be any o b l i g a t i o n of a p p e l l a n t s f o r a commission. These i n s t r u c t i o n s i n d i c a t e , however, t h a t a r e a l e s t a t e broker is never e n t i t l e d t o a commission u n t i l a binding w r i t t e n agreement is signed and t h e a c t u a l s a l e of r e a l p r o p e r t y i s c o m p l e t e d . Such a n i n s t r u c t i o n is misleading and i g n o r e s t h e f a c t t h a t a s a l e may n o t have been consummated due t o t h e f a u l t of t h e s e l l e r . W e acknowledge t h a t t h i s Court h a s s t a t e d t h a t a broker employed t o " s e l l o r e f f e c t a s a l e " and exchange ( a s is t h e c a s e h e r e ) does n o t e a r n h i s commission u n t i l t h e purchase p r i c e is p a i d , t i t l e is conveyed and t h e s a l e is completed. See Diehl and A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . v. Houtchens ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 372, 567 P.2d 930. I n an expansion of t h i s h o l d i n g , however, w e must a l s o conclude t h a t a broker is s t i l l e n t i t l e d t o h i s commission even i f t h e s a l e is n o t completed i f a ready, w i l l i n g and a b l e buyer is procured and t h e f a i l u r e t o consummate was s o l e l y due t o t h e wrongful a c t s o r i n t e r f e r e n c e of t h e s e l l e r . See Taylor v. Gaudy ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 46 0r.App. 235, 611 P.2d 336; Fender v. Brunken (Colo.App. 1 9 7 5 ) , 534 P.2d 347; Red C a r p e t Real E s t a t e of Aloha, I n c . v. Huygens ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 270 Or. 860, 530 P.2d 46; see a l s o E l l s w o r t h Dobbs, I n c . v. Johnson ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 50 N . J . 528, 236 A.2d 843. The D i s t r i c t Court i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y i n t h i s r e g a r d , and we f i n d no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n r e f u s i n g a p p e l l a n t s ' tendered i n s t r u c t i o n s . I n regard t o t h e f i n a l i s s u e on a p p e a l , t h e grounds upon which a recovery f o r respondent could h a v e . b a s e d a r e twofold: (1) a wrongful t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e l i s t i n g agreement by a p p e l l a n t s p r i o r t o its e x p i r a t i o n d a t e ; and ( 2 ) a w r o n g f u l r e f u s a l by a p p e l l a n t s t o c l o s e a b u y / s e l l t r a n s a c t i o n a f t e r respondent produced a buyer ready, w i l l i n g and a b l e t o purchase a p p e l l a n t s ' p r o p e r t y on t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e l i s t i n g agreement. I n r e s o l v i n g t h i s i s s u e , however, we need o n l y d i s c u s s a p p e l l a n t s ' wrongful t e r m i n a t i o n . A s t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n of l i a b i l i t y based upon a wrongful t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement p r o v i d e s i n pertinent part: "'THIS IS AN EXCLUSIVE LISTING' and you [respondent] are hereby granted the absolute, sole and exclusive right to sell or exchange the said described property. In the event of any sale, by me [appellants] or any other person, or of exchange or conveyance, of said property, or any part thereof, during the term of your exclusive employment, or in case I withdraw the authority - - - hereby g i v e n j r -- - - ior to said expiration - - - - - date, I aqree to pay you said commission --- just the same as if a sale had a c t u a l l y been consummated by you." - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - (Emphasis added. ) It is the employment contract which governs a real estate broker's compensation, and parties to such an agreement can make that compensation depend upon any lawful condition. Blank v. Borden (1974), 11 Cal.3d 963, 115 Cal.Rptr. 31, 524 P.2d 127. Here, the parties entered into an exclusive listing agreement whereby compensation can be paid upon appellants' unilateral termination. Such a "commission on withdrawal" has been deemed valid (if the withdrawal is not justified), and since the parties have agreed to the provision, it is incumbent upon the courts to enforce it. Blank, supra; see also, McMenamin v. Bishop (1972), 6 Wash.App. 455, 493 P.2d 1016; Central Idaho Agency, Inc. v. Turner (1968), 92 Idaho 306, 442 P.2d 442. Appellants assert that the termination was justified due to the broker's failure to fulfill his duties and responsibilities under the contract. In particular, appellants assert that respondent failed to work on sale and/or trade negotiations on their behalf; failed to advise them of important matters respecting their property; and failed to advise them of scheduled meetings. In reviewing the evidence offered in this matter, it is our function to determine whether there is any s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t and judgment when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . Here, t h e r e is c o n f l i c t i n g evidence a s t o r e s p o n d e n t ' s e f f o r t s i n o b t a i n i n g a ready, w i l l i n g and a b l e b u y e r . However, t h e r e c o r d i s s t i l l r e p l e t e w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l evidence n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g by t h e j u r y t h a t r e s p o n d e n t a c t e d i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under t h e c o n t r a c t and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s improperly t e r m i n a t e d t h e l i s t i n g agreement. The record r e v e a l s t h a t Randy White made numerous phone c a l l s , placed a d v e r t i s e m e n t s , showed t h e p r o p e r t y t o p r o s p e c t i v e b u y e r s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e p a r t y who e v e n t u a l l y purchased t h e p r o p e r t y ) and helped i n f i n d i n g t h e group i n t e r e s t e d i n working an exchange. W e a g r e e t h a t t h i s exchange was never completed, b u t respondent was still involved i n an a t t e m p t t o consummate some s o r t of agreement. The record a l s o r e v e a l s t h a t respondent d i d n o t p e r s o n a l l y n o t i f y a p p e l l a n t s of a meeting concerning t h e exchange, b u t t h i s was o n l y due t o t h e f a c t t h a t Randy White allowed t h e b u y e r s ' broker t o s o n o t i f y t h e Pashas. A p p e l l a n t s were t h u s informed of t h e meeting and were a b l e t o a t t e n d . Respondent a l s o f a i l e d t o a t t e n d t h e November 1 6 , 1977, meeting i n Helena, Montana, b u t t h i s was o n l y a f t e r being i n f o r m e d by a p p e l l a n t s t h a t W h i t e ' s p r e s e n c e was n o t necessary. W e cannot conclude t h a t t h e evidence s u p p o r t i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t s wrongfully t e r m i n a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t was "so i n h e r e n t l y i m p o s s i b l e o r improbable a s n o t t o be e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e f . " Berdine v. Sanders County ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 206, 209, 520 P.2d 650, 651. Consequently, i n accordance w i t h the terms of the contract agreed t o by the p a r t i e s , we m u s t conclude the jury was proper in awarding respondent its commission " a s i f a s a l e had been consummated. " The v e r d i c t and judgment of the D i s t r i c t Court is affirmed. W e concur: 2'2 Chief &&,s&&t&q J u s t i c e