Court Opinion

ID: 9762379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:21:36.725648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:33.920337
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. But, insofar as Forestier’s judgment against the seller, *419Nugent, is concerned, I would reverse solely on the ground that there is evidence that Forestier, the broker, knew, at the time that he produced the prospective purchaser, that such purchaser was not financially “able” to purchase the property, and that he did not make this fact known to Nu-gent. The majority opinion in this case seems to indicate that if the purchaser was, in fact, not an “able” purchaser, this, in and of itself, defeats the broker’s right to a commission even though the seller accepted the purchaser and entered into a binding and enforceable contract of sale with the purchaser produced by the broker. I am not willing to join in such a holding. See Anno.: 74 A.L.R.2d 437, 454-57 (1960).