Grindstaff v. Merchants' Investment & Trust Co.
This text of 122 P. 46 (Grindstaff v. Merchants' Investment & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
“That a real estate broker finds a purchaser able, ready, and willing to purchase, upon the terms of the seller, is not enough, under the apparent weight of authority, to entitle him to his commission; but he must either obtain a binding agreement to purchase the property, or bring the parties together, so that his principal also finds a purchaser.”
Grindstaff testifies that after May he had no written option, but endeavored to sell it just the same, but that defendant did not want to tie the property up to him. He said it was not going to give another option unless they had a prospective purchaser. The company wanted to be free to dispose of it as it pleased, but at any time they got a customer it was willing to give them time to sell; that it would not give any one an exclusive option unless he had a customer; that he did have an exclusive option for a few days when he had a customer from Tacoma, and he assumed that if he took a customer there that would pay $80,000 defendant would sell and pay his commission; that he took Gordon to defendant’s office to look at the lease and the party-wall agreement, but they had no dealings with Hoyt, nor any talk about Gordon’s ability to [314]*314buy or intentions in that regard. No exclusive option pending the investigations was asked, and defendant was not charged with any duty nor put under obligations thereby to either Grindstaff or Gordon. So far as appears, there was no prospect of a sale by Grindstaff, nor any negotiations pending between him and Gordon. For a period of 10 days plaintiffs did nothing to forward the sale and had no communication with Gordon. Their negotiations had ceased on the 7th of July, and plaintiffs failed to prove a case sufficient to be submitted to the jury. The motion for a judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 P. 46, 61 Or. 310, 1912 Ore. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grindstaff-v-merchants-investment-trust-co-or-1912.