Court Opinion

ID: 9696925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:01:42.317011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:27.812867
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. In my opinion, it was error to submit to the jury the question of whether the buyers produced by plaintiff were able to purchase defendants’ property. There was no evidence that the proposed purchasers did not have the resources necessary to consummate the sale. On the contrary, there was uncontroverted testimony that they had ample means to do so.
Nor do I find any variance between the listing contract and the purchase agreement. The former provides for a “downpayment” of $3,000 and authorizes the acceptance of a “deposit.” The purchase agreement merely divides the downpayment between an earnest money deposit of $1,000, due on December 13, 1960, and a payment in cash of $2,000, due on January 10, 1961. I fail to discern any departure from the listing agreement in these arrangements. Apparently defendants were unable to find any inconsistency either. Nowhere in the record is there any indication of their reason for refusing to sell except testimony that they wanted to meet the buyers, and insisted on a down-payment substantially in excess of the $3,000 called for in the listing contract.
In my opinion the plaintiff’s right to recover is cogently demonstrated by the testimony of defendant Alex Stockman, elicited by his own counsel, as follows:
“Q. Did Mr. Wurdemann ever talk to you about Mr. Butzon’s financial condition?
“A. Yes, he was supposed to be pretty well off and all that, but he *190didn’t have much to offer for our place and I couldn’t accept the small down payment, and he had a $16,000 home, and I said, ‘If he wants the place he can trade his home on the place and the deal is on’, but he didn’t want to pay down more than $4,000, and I couldn’t accept that.”
I would reverse.