Present: All the Justices 

GSHH-RICHMOND, INC. 

v. Record No. 960493 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN 

 January 10, 1997 

IMPERIAL ASSOCIATES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Theodore J. Markow, Judge 

 In this appeal, we consider whether a lease provided 

adequate consideration for the lessor's promise to pay a sales 

commission to the leasing agent if the lessee later purchased the 

property. 

 GSHH-Richmond, Inc. is the successor in interest to Virginia 

Realty and Development Company (collectively, Virginia Realty), a 

party to the disputed contracts in this case. Virginia Realty 

sells and leases commercial real estate on behalf of its clients. 

 Imperial Associates is a general partnership which owned the 

Imperial Building in the City of Richmond. In September 1993, 

Virginia Realty entered into a "Sales and Leasing Agreement" (the 

listing agreement), in which the "Owner" employed the "Agent," 

Virginia Realty, to procure a lease for the Imperial Building. 

The Owner agreed to pay Virginia Realty a six percent commission 

"on all leases originated by the Agent," and reserved the option 

to pay the balance of any lease commission due the Agent in the 

event of a sale. 

 In December 1993, Imperial Associates and Kaestner and 

Associates, a sole proprietorship, entered into a lease 

negotiated by Virginia Realty. The lease provided Virginia 

Realty a commission of six percent of the rental income received 
- 2 - 

by Imperial Associates. The lease also specified that Virginia 

Realty would receive a sales commission of six percent of the 

purchase price, in addition to the rental commission, if Kaestner 

and Associates, its successors, or assigns purchased the 

building. The lease stipulated that the sales commission was 

provided "in consideration of Agent's consummating this lease." 

 Virginia Realty received its rental commissions pursuant to 

the lease from March through December 1994. During the summer of 

1994, Imperial Associates advised Virginia Realty that it was 

interested in selling the Imperial Building to Kaestner and 

Associates. 

 In October 1994, Imperial Associates entered into a purchase 

agreement with Four Twenty Two Corporation, a corporation whose 

sole shareholder, officer, and director is Joseph W. Kaestner. 

In January 1995, Imperial Associates sold all its rights in the 

Imperial Building to Four Twenty Two Corporation for $1,550,000. 

Virginia Realty was not paid a sales commission on this 

transaction. 

 Virginia Realty filed a motion for judgment against Imperial 

Associates alleging that, under the lease, Imperial Associates 

owed Virginia Realty a $93,000 commission for the sale of the 

Imperial Building. Imperial Associates filed a motion for 

summary judgment on this issue, arguing that there was no 

additional consideration in the lease for the sales commission. 

Imperial Associates contended that Virginia Realty's services in 
- 3 - 

consummating the lease were no different from the 

responsibilities Virginia Realty had undertaken in the listing 

agreement. 

 The trial court granted summary judgment to Imperial 

Associates on this issue. The court concluded that Virginia 

Realty had provided no additional consideration for Imperial 

Associates' agreement to pay the sales commission. 

 On appeal, Virginia Realty argues that, in return for the 

sales commission, it rendered services in "consummating the 

lease" which included negotiation of the lease and advice 

provided during that process. Virginia Realty asserts that these 

services were distinct from, and in addition to, the services it 

was required to provide in "originating the lease." 

 In response, Imperial Associates contends that the listing 

agreement provided the entire compensation due Virginia Realty 

for the lease and sale of the property. Imperial Associates 

argues that Virginia Realty assumed only one obligation under 

both contracts, and that Imperial Associates' conditional promise 

of additional payment in the lease is not binding because 

Virginia Realty had a pre-existing duty to perform the same 

obligation under the listing agreement. We disagree with 

Imperial Associates. 

 We evaluate the consideration given for a contractual 

obligation in accordance with a well-established standard: 

 Consideration is, in effect, the price bargained for 

and paid for a promise. It may be in the form of a 

benefit to the party promising or a detriment to the 
- 4 - 

party to whom the promise is made. It matters not to 

what extent the promisor is benefitted or how little 

the promisee may give for the promise. A very slight 

advantage to the one party or a trifling inconvenience 

to the other is generally held sufficient to support 

the promise. 

Sager v. Basham, 241 Va. 227, 229-30, 401 S.E.2d 676, 677 (1991) 

(quoting Brewer v. Bank of Danville, 202 Va. 807, 815, 120 S.E.2d 

273, 279 (1961)); see also R.K. Chevrolet, Inc. v. Hayden, 253 

Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (1997), decided today. 

 In reviewing the contracts before us, we also note that the 

words "originate" and "consummate" have different meanings. The 

plain, ordinary meaning of the word "originate" is "to cause the 

beginning of: give rise to: initiate." Webster's Third New 

International Dictionary 1592 (1993). In contrast, the plain, 

ordinary meaning of the word "consummate" is "to bring to 

completion." Id. at 490. 

 Applying these definitions, we conclude that the listing 

agreement required Virginia Realty to originate a lease by 

presenting to the owner a person or entity which eventually 

executed a lease for the premises. The listing agreement did not 

require Virginia Realty to complete the negotiation and execution 

of that lease to receive a rental commission. 

 Unlike the listing agreement, however, the lease contained a 

provision for the payment of a sales commission, and recited 

different, additional consideration for that commission. The 

sales commission was payable in consideration of Virginia 

Realty's consummation of a lease that resulted in a sale of the 
- 5 - 

property. In order to consummate a lease, Virginia Realty was 

required to bring the transaction to completion. The lease 

specifically stated that a sales commission "shall be in addition 

to the rental commissions provided for in the immediately 

preceding paragraph." 

 This Court considered a similar factual situation in W.D. 

Nelson & Co. v. Taylor Heights Development Corp., 207 Va. 386, 

150 S.E.2d 142 (1966). There, the lease provided that if the 

tenants purchased the premises during the lease term, the agent 

would receive a sales commission based on the gross amount of the 

purchase price "in consideration of Rental Agent's consummating 

this lease." Id. at 388, 150 S.E.2d at 144. The trial court 

held that this provision was unenforceable for lack of 

"sufficient consideration." Id. at 388, 150 S.E.2d at 145. 

 This Court held that "[a]lthough [the] promise to pay 

additional compensation was of a contingent nature it was based 

on adequate consideration. Any other construction would be 

contrary to the intention of the parties as expressed by the 

plain language used and would amount to making a new contract for 

the parties." Id. at 390, 150 S.E.2d at 145. 

 As recognized above, the consummation of a lease can be 

sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay a sales 

commission in the event that the leased property is purchased by 

the tenant. Here, however, the sufficiency of the consideration 

for Imperial Associates' promise to pay a sales commission was 
- 6 - 

decided by the trial court on Imperial Associates' motion for 

summary judgment. In considering a motion for summary judgment, 

the trial court must adopt inferences from the facts alleged that 

are most favorable to the nonmoving party, unless those 

inferences are strained, forced, or contrary to reason. Renner 

v. Stafford, 245 Va. 351, 353, 429 S.E.2d 218, 220 (1993); Carson 

v. LeBlanc, 245 Va. 135, 139-40, 427 S.E.2d 189, 192 (1993). 

 Virginia Realty alleged in its motion for judgment that it 

procured a four-year lease with Kaestner and Associates, and that 

its services included assistance in the negotiation of that 

lease. An inference can be drawn from the facts alleged that 

Virginia Realty performed additional services beyond originating 

the lease to consummate the lease executed by the parties. Thus, 

at this stage of the proceedings, the legal requirement of 

consideration was satisfied. 

 For these reasons, we will reverse the trial court's 

judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

Reversed and remanded.