Opinion ID: 4026632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continued Negotiations

Text: Oak Knoll and Harris also agreed that the listing agreement would be automatically renewed in the event of continued negotiations. Harris maintains that such negotiations took place and thereby kept the listing agreement alive, such that he earned a commission based on the ultimate sale of the property. We disagree. We begin by considering the language of the contract. The listing agreement states, in relevant part: Should negotiations continue after the six (6) month period the OWNER agree to automatically extend this agreement and its terms until such as the negotiations are completed. Harris takes this to mean that the listing agreement would not expire so long as unnecessary to reach this point. Cf. Revere Real Estate, 438 A.2d at 1205 (A seller cannot defeat a broker's right to its commission by his unilateral nonperformance of a sales contract unless the listing contract reserves the right to condition payment upon consummation of the sales contract. (emphasis added)). Regardless, we need not address this argument because it is waived: Harris fails to bring to our attention any authority indicating that Oak Knoll's supposed breach of the 2011 P&S has any bearing on our analysis. See United States v. Munyenyezi, 781 F.3d 532, 542 n.11 (1st Cir. 2015). In fact, he offers no explanation whatsoever as to why this point should even affect the bottom-line conclusion. A claim of error without explanation as to the error's import generally amounts to little more than sound and fury. Which is to say, it signifies nothing. - 16 - negotiations took place at least once every six months.10 Harris claims, in turn, that he would be entitled to a commission if an offer were to be accepted within twelve months of the last instance of negotiations.11 Even assuming for the sake of argument that this is a reasonable interpretation of the contract, see Cruz, 84 A.3d at 835, Oak Knoll is nonetheless entitled to summary judgment as there is no evidence that an offer was accepted within twelve months of the last instance of negotiations. Despite taking all reasonable inferences in Harris's favor, the record contains no evidence of any negotiations occurring between June 2012 and March 2013. In fact, it is wholly silent on that point. Thus, under Harris's proffered interpretation of the listing agreement, the negotiations concluded at some point in June 2012 (i.e., as no negotiations took place within six months of that date), and the listing agreement expired in December 2012. There is, in turn, no evidence that an offer was accepted within twelve months of June 2012. Thus, even under Harris's proposed interpretation of the 10 In other words, negotiations would be deemed to continue unless there were a six-month gap in those negotiations. 11 That is, seizing on the words and its terms, Harris points out that one of the terms of the listing agreement is that it is to remain in effect for six months. And moreover, the acceptanceof-an-offer provision entitles Harris to a commission if an offer were to be accepted within six months of the listing agreement's expiration (although, as we have established, the offer would have to result in a sale). - 17 - contract, he cannot show that continued negotiations kept the listing agreement alive such that he earned a commission. In attempting to show otherwise, Harris points to an exchange of emails in late March 2013. He also highlights an April 2, 2013 affidavit from Gleichman, in which she states that Harris recently emailed her to say that we have a deal for $6.0 period. And Harris further points out that he contacted Navarino in August 2013. But again (and by Harris's own logic), the negotiations rang down the curtain and joined the choir invisible in June 2012, taking the listing agreement with them six months later. And while the negotiations were eventually rekindled at some point in 2013, Harris makes no argument that the alreadyexpired listing agreement could be similarly resuscitated. The evidence cited by Harris is of no help to him. Similarly, the evidence cited by Harris in no way suggests that the parties were continuously negotiating within the relevant timeframe: it does nothing to address the substantial gap in the record. Accordingly, Harris hasn't pointed to hard evidence of a material factual dispute, and thus fails to stave off summary judgment. Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990); see also id. (Evidence which is 'merely colorable or is not significantly probative' will not preclude summary - 18 - judgment. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)).12