Case Name: BRANSTETTER v. HOOK
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-03-21
Citations: 251 S.W. 257
Docket Number: No. 2040
Parties: BRANSTETTER v. HOOK.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 251
Pages: 257–260

Head Matter:
BRANSTETTER v. HOOK.
(No. 2040.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
March 21, 1923.
Rehearing Denied May 9, 1923.)
1. Brokers <@=86(7) — Evidence held insufficient to support broker/s right to commission.
Evidence that plaintiff deceived defendant as to financial ability of the purchaser produced to complete the contract of sale precluded the broker from recovering under the rule that, wherfe the commission is payable only in the event the contract of sale is completed, the plaintiff will be denied recovery, where he fails to show performance, unless the failure pf performance is due to the fault of the owner.
2. Brokers <3=64(2) — Acceptance of forfeit held not to make seller liable for commission where purchaser produced not financially able to perform contract of sale.
Under an agreement that no commission should be paid unless the purchaser made a cash payment of $12,000 and closed the contract in accordance with its terms, the acceptance of a forfeit of $500, fixed as liquidated damages in case of the purchaser’s nonperformance, did not subject defendant to liability for the commission, where the purchaser was not financially able to perform the contract and the owner could not enforce performance.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Brokers <3=84(2) — Ordinarily, must establish that purchaser produced ready, willing, and able to buy on owner’s terms.
Ordinarily, before a broker can claim his commission, he must show that he has produced a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on the owner’s terms.
4. Brokers <@=86(5) — Mere announcement by broker of financial ability of purchaser produced not conclusive that he was ready, able, and willing to buy on owner’s terms.
A broker’s mere announcement that the prospective purchaser was ready to enter into the contract of sale is not conclusive evidence that he was ready, able, and willing to buy on the owner’s terms.
5. Brokers <@=57 (2) — Owner consenting to new terms of sale after production of purchaser bound’ thereby.
If the purchaser produced by a broker is not ready, able, and willing to buy on the owner’s terms, then the owner is at liberty to say before entering into further negotiations on what terms he will make a sale and on what terms he will pay a commission, and, if he expressly or impliedly consents to the new terms, he becomes bound thereby.
6. Brokers <@=40 — Consideration to support owner’s agreement to pay commission held sufficient.
■Where a broker agreed with the owner to produce a purchaser for his land and to accept a stated sum in the event of closing the deal and the payment of the cash called for, there was a consideration sufficient to support the agreement.
7. Vendor and purchaser @=x>3 (4) — Contract held option.
A contract for the sale of land which does not hind the purchaser to taire the land or pay for’it, but which does bind the owner in consideration of a sum paid to convey to the purchaser upon the latter’s payment of the sum stipulated, merely confers upon the purchaser the option either to take and pay for the land or forfeit the money paid.
<2snFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Sherman County ; Reese Tatum, Judge.
Suit by Thomas P. Branstetter against W. H. Hook. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
W. I.-Gamewell, of IDalhart, for appellant.
Tatum & Strong, of D'alhart, for appellee.

Opinion:
KLETT, J.
In a commission suit instituted by Thomas P. Branstetter against W. H. Hook, plaintiff alleged that the defendant promised to pay him $5 per acre for finding a. purchaser for 353 acres of land and that the service was performed by procuring one Toney Colle to enter into a contract of purchase with defendant. The defendant, following a general denial, specially-answered: That the contract was not concluded because the purchaser was not financially able; that the defendant was induced to enter into the contract by the false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiff as to the purchaser's financial ability; and that it was the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that no commission was to- be paid unless the purchaser made the cash payment of $12,-000 called for and closed the contract in accordance with its terms. The plaintiff replied by supplemental pleadings that after the written contract was entered into the plaintiff waived the fraud by undertaking to carry out the contract after he learned of the fraud and excused performance by accepting the forfeit of $500 fixed as liquidated damages in case of the purchaser's nonperformance.
In answer to special issues, the jury found that defendant was deceived by plaintiff as to the purchaser's financial ability and that the commission was to be paid when the deal was closed and cash payment made. Thereupon judgment was rendered in favor of defendant. The evidence, though conflicting in many respects, is sufficient to support the special defenses made by the defendant's answer. .The failure to complete the sale was not chargeable to defendant, but was due to the purchaser's financial ability. The defendant testified at. the trial that he was still ready to close the deal if the purchaser would carry out his part of the contract. The plaintiff admitted on the witness stand:
"I knew my prospective purchaser failed to comply with his contract. I think Mr. Hook has complied with his part."
Upon the facts stated we are of the opinion that all propositions- presented by appellant are concluded against him and that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed under the rule that where the commission is payable only in the event the contract of sale is completed, the plaintiff will be denied recovery where he fails to- show performance unless the failure of performance is due to the fault of the owner. Lundell v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 1098; Heath v. Huffhines (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 176; Freeman v. Wooten, 234 S. W. 415; Owen v. Kuhn (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 432; Cheatam & Haney v. Dansby (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S. W. 385.
But appellant urges that appellee was at fault on the ground that appellee waived or excused performance by accepting the $500 forfeit instead of undertaking to compel performance l5y suit. Our view is that this position is not maintainable for the reason that the purchaser was not financially able to perform and that the owner could not force performance. Suit for specific performance would have been idle. Laird v. Elliott (Tex. Civ. App.) 219 S. W. 499; Kollman v. Brooks (Tex. Civ. App.) 155 S. W. 1007.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<®=For other oases see same topic ana KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests ana indexes