Court Opinion

ID: 9457756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:32:27.270327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:30.056945
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The majority affirms the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there were no “facts from which a jury might have concluded that a sale had been consummated.” But a broker who produces a buyer ready, willing, and able to perform is entitled to a commission whether or not a sale has been consummated. Wagner v. Derecktor, 306 N.Y. 386, 390, 118 N.E.2d 570 (1954); Hecht v. Meller, 23 N.Y.2d 301, 305, 296 N.Y. S.2d 561, 244 N.E.2d 77 (1968).
There was ample evidence upon which the jury could have found that Dilling-ham was prepared to sell the barge at the time Atlas produced a willing buyer.
The district judge apparently granted appellees’ motion for a directed verdict on the ground that appellant did not introduce sufficient evidence to establish Gulf’s ability to pay the price asked for the barge. However plaintiff showed that Gulf was owned by General Tire and Rubber Company; that Gulf purchased another tug in early 1969 and was at that time having another one built; and that the purchase would be financed either by a loan from the parent company or by means of a mortgage. This evidence, though meager, was sufficient to support the inference that Gulf had the ability to pay.