Court Opinion

ID: 6261990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 22:10:25.783298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:44.114701
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority apparently agrees that the brokers would be entitled to their commission had the purchase option contained in the original agreement been exercised. Since the parties entered into a new agreement, the majority holds, the brokers are no longer entitled to their commission. This result puts a burden of proof upon brokers which is impossible to sustain. Anytime sellers and buyers agree on a price, other than the original selling price, a “new” agreement must be drawn up. This “new” agreement does not remove any rights of a broker to his or her commission. Furthermore, there is no way for a broker to prove that the “new” agreement was an extension of the “old” agreement.
In the case before us, the original selling price was $900,-000. The “old” agreement required the buyers to pay $646,-000 for the property. Had this agreement resulted in a sale, the brokers would have received their commission. Under the “new” agreement, the buyers paid $428,000 plus all delinquent taxes, back rentals and $20,000 they were to receive from the Commonwealth’s condemnation of a small part of the property. The disparity between the purchase price of two agreements is not so great as to create a presumption against the broker. This disparity is even less when one considers the parties did not pay the brokers’ fee *40and could therefore “split the difference” and subtract that amount from the purchase price. This Court would not find a “new” agreement merely because the parties originally agreed upon a price of $500,000 and later changed to $495,-000. Likewise, there is no “new” agreement in this case. The brokers are entitled to their commission.
I therefore dissent.