Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Real-Estate-Brokers/Chapter-XIV-Availability-Of-Purchaser.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 03:07:58+00:00

Document:
1 As to ability of purchaser, see Sec. 153-155 infra.
² Nolan v. East. 132 111. App. 634 (1907); King Powder Co. v. Dillon, 96 Pac 441 (Colo. 1908) ; Cook v Forst. 116 Ala. 397 (1896). ³Runyon v. Wilkinson, 57 N. J. L. 422 (1894).
4 See Sec. 117-119 supra.
5 Forrester v. Price. 6 Misc. 308 (N. Y. 1893). See Sec. 150.
6 Forrester v. Price, supra; Fairchild v. Cunningham, 84 Minn. 524 (1901); Runyon v. Wilkinson, 57 N. J. L. 421 (1894).
7 Wooley v. Schmal. 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 76 (1890).
8 Weibler v. Cook. 77 App. Div. 637 (N. Y. 1902).
9 Sheinhouse v. Klneppel, 80 App. Div. 445 (N. Y. 1903).
Where the broker presents a person who assumes to represent an organization desiring to purchase, and such person is unable to produce his authority for entering into a contract on behalf of the organization, and refuses to enter into the contract personally, it was held in Kirwan v. Barney, 29 Misc. 614 (N. Y. 1899) that the owner is not liable for commissions. In the case cited, the court quotes from Bennett v. Egan, 3 Misc. 421 (N. Y. 1893), as follows: "As long as the vendor insists upon something he has a right to insist upon as a condition of sale, and to which the vendee refuses to assent, in consequence of which disagreement the vendee refuses to enter into an enforceable contract of sale, it cannot be held that the broker has procured a complete meeting of the minds of the vendor and vendee."
Where a broker produced a proposed purchaser and an informal writing was entered into, according to which the parties were to meet subsequently and execute a written contract of sale, it was held in Feiner v. Kobbe, 13 Misc. 499 (N. Y. 1895) that the broker is not entitled to commissions if the purchaser fails to attend and execute the written contract. This, on the ground that the purchaser was apparently not ready and willing to purchase the property.
In the case cited, however, the court concluded its opinion as follows: "The defendant insisted upon having a formal contract in writing giving in detail all the terms and conditions of the exchange, and had a right to impose this condition before assenting to a trade, or making himself liable for brokerage. The failure to effect the exchange is not chargeable to any misconduct of the defendant, but is owing to inexcusable absence of New-borg, the proposed purchaser, whom the plaintiff impliedly undertook to produce at the time and place appointed for the execution of the formal contract."
10 Oppenheimer v. Barnett, 131 App. Div. 614 (N. T. 1909).
11 Weiss v. Rubinson, 112 App. D1y. 276 (N. Y. 1906).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.