Court Opinion

ID: 9736525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:58:54.411162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:07.190614
License: Public Domain

COBEY, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the reversal but dissent as to its basis. I do not believe that on this record the law of restitution should be applied to the broker’s withdrawal of the commission owed him by the seller from the buyer’s deposit in escrow. The escrow instructions expressly state that the seller is presently obligated to pay the broker a brokerage commission of $2,000 for services rendered and completed, and that both the buyer and the seller authorize and instruct the broker to retain and apply said commission from the buyer’s deposit in escrow.
I do not think that failure of performance on the part of the broker’s principal, the seller, gives rise to any right of rescission as against the innocent broker as contrasted with *680the defaulting seller. In the absence of any showing of wrongful conduct on the agent’s part, or of circumstances indicating that he contemplated assuming responsibility for his principal’s performance of the contract, an agent for a disclosed principal does not become liable for such nonperformance. (See Civ. Code, §2343; Bogart v. Crosby & Van Haren, 80 Cal. 195, 196-198 [22 P. 84]; Rest.2d Agency, § 328, p. 80.)
There is nothing in the record to indicate any culpability whatsoever on the part of the broker in the seller’s failure of performance. As the seller's agent, in my opinion-, the broker-did not impliedly warrant the accuracy of the seller’s representations to the buyer and he should not therefore be held liable for any subsequently discovered inaccuracy in them.