Opinion ID: 1373637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questions : First. Did plaintiff comply with the terms of his contract with defendant?

Text: Yes. These rules are here applicable. [1] 1. The parties to a broker's contract for the sale of real property are at liberty to make the compensation depend upon any lawful conditions they see fit to place therein. ( Kimmell v. Skelly, 130 Cal. 555, 559 [62 P. 1067]; cf. Fleming v. Dolfin, 214 Cal. 269 [4 P.2d 776, 78 A.L.R. 585].) [2] 2. Where an agreement provides that a real estate broker's commission is to be paid if the property is sold within a specified period to a person whose name is furnished to the owner by the broker, and the property is sold by the owner to such a party during the prescribed period, it is immaterial that the agent was not the procuring cause of the sale. ( Fleming v. Dolfin, supra ; Gregory v. Bonney, 135 Cal. 589, 592 [67 P. 1038]; Walter v. Libby, 72 Cal. App.2d 138, 141 [3] et seq. [164 P.2d 21]; Mills v. Hunter, 103 Cal. App.2d 352, 357 [3] et seq. [229 P.2d 456]; Delbon v. Brazil, 134 Cal. App.2d 461, 464 [1] [285 P.2d 710].) [] [3] 3. Where a landowner has agreed to pay a real estate broker a commission in the event of a sale, a sale means the making of an executory binding agreement by which the property is to be sold to a purchaser obtained by the broker. ( Twogood v. Monnette, 191 Cal. 103, 107 [2] [215 P. 542]; Coulter v. Howard, 203 Cal. 17, 25 [6] [262 P. 751]; Woodbridge Realty v. Plymouth Dev. Corp., 130 Cal. App.2d 270, 279 [6] [278 P.2d 713]; Freeman v. Van Wagenen, 90 N.J. Law 358 [101 A. 55, 56 [3, 4]]; Felleman v. Von Luckner, 253 N.Y.S. 567 [234 App.Div. 787]; Klipper v. Schlossberg, 96 N.J. Law 397 [115 A. 345, 346].) [4] Applying the foregoing rules to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the property was sold within 90 days after the termination of the contract between plaintiff and defendant to a person whose name was registered with defendant by plaintiff in writing before the termination of the contract. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of the contract, plaintiff was entitled to his broker's commission from defendant. Wright & Kimbrough v. Dewees, 52 Cal. App. 42 [197 P. 957], and Hobson v. Hunt, 59 Cal. App. 679 [211 P. 242], relied on by defendant, are not applicable to the facts in the present case. In Wright & Kimbrough v. Dewees , it was held that the rule here relied on was not applicable, because the contract provided `if sold to a party to whose attention said property was brought through the agency of said agent' the broker shall receive five per cent `as a commission for promoting said sale. ' (P. 46.) It was pointed out that in Kimmell v. Skelly, 130 Cal. 555 [62 P. 1067], in which case the rule was held to be applicable, the contract provided for a fixed compensation in the event of a sale by anyone during a specified period. The situation in the present case is the same as in the Kimmell case. In Hobson v. Hunt, supra , the contract provided for a commission if the agent during the life of this agreement, shall find a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy the said property at the above price (p. 680), while in the present case, as pointed out supra, there was no requirement that the plaintiff find a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy defendant's property.