Court Opinion

ID: 9559744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:34:55.78486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:37.395711
License: Public Domain

*401DOOLING, J.
I concur. Without regard to the question of guilty knowledge discussed in the main opinion I am satisfied that the evidence sufficiently shows a violation of section 10176(g), Business and Professions Code, by appellant himself. That section makes a cause for discipline “the failure of a licensee to reveal to the employer of such licensee the full amount of such licensee’s compensation, commission or profit under any agreement authorizing or employing such licensee to sell . . . real estate for compensation or commission. . . Even if appellant honestly believed that Turner had orally authorized the net listing of his property at $2,000 he must have known as an experienced realtor that Turner was not legally bound by a mere oral authorization. (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5.) That he knew there was no binding agreement to sell for $2,000 net is made clear by his asking McGrath to telephone Turner to ascertain if he was still willing to take that amount.
His duty of disclosure of the true selling price under those circumstances is clear on fundamental principles of agency. (See note in 53 A.L.R. 136 et seq., “Duty of broker to inform principal of enhanced value of property.”) Knowing that he had no enforceable net agreement with Turner he was bound to disclose to Turner that he was making a $950 profit on the sale before procuring Turner’s release for $2,000.
No agent should put his own interests above those of his principal which is clearly what appellant deliberately did in this case.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 7, 1951, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 3, 1952. Carter, J., voted for a hearing.