Opinion ID: 1137752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Large Parcel of Land

Text: We deal first with the large parcel of land, because the procurement test applies most clearly to it. The instant facts reveal that United Farm's agent had prepared to show the land by personally walking over it and taking pictures and making notes. He physically took the two men, who ultimately purchased the land, to see it. He spent approximately two hours walking over the land with them. He was the source of the two purchasers' knowledge of who the owners/sellers were. Although the two men did not contact the agent again after their initial visit with him, twenty days later they purchased the property directly from the Defendants/Owners. Under these undisputed facts, we find that the broker's efforts were, as a matter of law, the efficient cause of the sale. Possibly, the broker's efforts were not the sole cause of the sale ( i.e., the Defendants/Owners' negotiations with the purchasers subsequent to the broker's showing them the property may have been a contributing factor in the total effort which produced the sale), but, as we indicated above, to be the procuring cause of the sale, it is not necessary that the broker's efforts be the only cause of the sale. See generally Perdue v. Gates, supra . Moreover, we find that the series of events directly instigated by the broker's efforts and culminating in a sale twenty days later were unbroken and continuous. In so finding, we are not unmindful of the ore tenus rule. However, where, as here, the facts are undisputed, the ore tenus presumption of correctness is inapplicable. Home Indemnity Co. v. Reed Equipment Co., 381 So.2d 45, 47 (Ala.1980). With due deference to the learned trial judge, we are convinced that he misapplied the law of procurement to these undisputed facts. We, therefore, reverse his ruling as to the large parcel of land.