Lampros v. Kalivretenos

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Lampros v. Kalivretenos

221 A.2d 916, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 204

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 25, 1966

Docket3853

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.2d 916 (Lampros v. Kalivretenos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lampros v. Kalivretenos, 221 A.2d 916, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 204 (D.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal stems from a judgment upon a directed verdict at the conclusion of all testimony denying appellant a commission for the sale of certain realty. The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that the offer submitted by appellant contained material variations from the terms authorized by the seller. Although the court did not specify all the variations it considered material, a review of the listing agreement, the offer, and the testimony of the parties convinces us that there is support for the trial court’s conclusion that a substantial deviation existed between the terms of the listing agreement and those in the offer 1 and that the broker, having failed to produce a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy in accordance with the terms authorized by the seller, is not entitled to a commission. 2

Affirmed.

1

. Restifo v. Pastor, D.C.Mun.App., 129 A.2d 533, 535 (1957); Leo M. Bernstein & Co. Sales Inc. v. Miller, D.C.Mun.App., 125 A.2d 851 (1956) ; Altman v. De Jong, D.C.Mun.App., 113 A.2d 747 (1955); Heurich v. Sullivan, 52 App.D.C. 95, 281 F. 599 (1922).

2

. In view of our affirmance of the directed verdict against appellant, it is unnecessary to reach and consider the factual question as to whether appellee had earlier discharged the broker for cause, thus terminating his agency.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This appeal stems from a judgment upon a directed verdict at the conclusion of all testimony denying appellant a commission for the sale of certain realty. The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that the offer submitted by appellant contained material variations from the terms authorized by the seller. Although the court did not specify all the variations it considered material, a review of the listing agreement, the offer, and the testimony of the parties convinces us that there is support for the trial court’s conclusion that a substantial deviation existed between the terms of the listing agreement and those in the offer 1 and that the broker, having failed to produce a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy in accordance with the terms authorized by the seller, is not entitled to a commission. 2

Affirmed.

1

. Restifo v. Pastor, D.C.Mun.App., 129 A.2d 533, 535 (1957); Leo M. Bernstein & Co. Sales Inc. v. Miller, D.C.Mun.App., 125 A.2d 851 (1956) ; Altman v. De Jong, D.C.Mun.App., 113 A.2d 747 (1955); Heurich v. Sullivan, 52 App.D.C. 95, 281 F. 599 (1922).

2

. In view of our affirmance of the directed verdict against appellant, it is unnecessary to reach and consider the factual question as to whether appellee had earlier discharged the broker for cause, thus terminating his agency.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.2d 916, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampros-v-kalivretenos-dc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack