Opinion ID: 2609983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Order for Payment of Broker's Fees

Text: When Bell directed the preparation of the escrow instructions, which he signed, he provided for the payment of his commission from the proceeds of the sale. At that time Bell also caused to be prepared an ORDER TO PAY COMMISSION TO BROKER, which he and Mrs. Krupp signed. [4] The Order provided that Bell's commission would be paid from the receipts of the sale of the property to the County. Bell, however, in his deposition now contends that Mrs. Krupp had orally agreed with him sometime prior to 1967 to pay a sales commission upon Bell's finding a purchaser who was acceptable to Mrs. Krupp; that when, as in this case, Mrs. Krupp signed the escrow instructions, she accepted the County as the purchaser of the ranch; and that at that moment Bell had earned and was entitled to his commission. In his argument, Bell insists that whether the sale was consummated or whether Mrs. Krupp could have sued the County successfully to enforce the sale is, in this case, entirely irrelevant. We do not agree. Whether a seller could successfully sue a buyer might be irrelevant in certain situations, but in the instant case the relationship between the buyer and the seller, insofar as it had to do with the consummation of the sale, is relevant to the issue of the broker's commission. It is true that the general rule, which has been stated many times, is that, in the absence of some other agreement, a broker has earned his commission when he has produced a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase the property upon the terms prescribed by the seller. Evans v. Dorman, 81 Nev. 319, 402 P.2d 652 (1965); Lukey v. Smith, 77 Nev. 402, 365 P.2d 487 (1961); Engel v. Wilcox, 75 Nev. 323, 340 P.2d 93 (1959). The payment of a broker's commission, however, may be predicated on a specified condition. As summarized in 10 S. Williston, Contracts, § 1287A at 978 (3d ed. W. Jaeger 1967): Whatever may be the customs and usages respecting the broker's right to a commission, when he presents a purchaser ready, willing and able to perform, the parties by their agreement may make this right dependent on an express condition such as actual sale. Or, other qualifications may be incorporated such as `out of purchase money,' `cash payment,' `upon effecting a sale,' `upon consummation of sale,' `on the closing of title,' `when title passed,' `if deal went through,' or, `on the date formal transfer is made.' Payment of the broker's commission may also be predicated on specified conditions precedent, or other factors affecting the coming into being of a valid contract. (Footnotes omitted.) See also Fitch v. LaTourrette, 75 Nev. 484, 346 P.2d 704 (1959); Cochran v. Ellsworth, 126 Cal. App.2d 429, 272 P.2d 904 (1954); Wilson v. Security-First Nat'l Bank, 84 Cal. App.2d 427, 190 P.2d 975 (1948). We conclude that a broker who is seeking a commission (1) on different terms from those provided in escrow instructions and (2) on an order of payment for his fees, both of which he signed, may not now be permitted to deny his representations on the basis of a different and prior oral agreement. Cf. Aldabe v. Adams, 81 Nev. 280, 402 P.2d 34 (1965). The order granting summary judgment is affirmed. COLLINS, C.J., and ZENOFF, BATJER, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.