Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc.

207 A.2d 378, 152 Conn. 710
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedFebruary 17, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 207 A.2d 378 (Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc., 207 A.2d 378, 152 Conn. 710 (Colo. 1965).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover a real estate commission which they claimed to have earned in the sale of the defendant’s real estate. They now appeal from a judgment rendered for the defendant.

[711]*711The finding of subordinate facts, which is not attacked, discloses the following situation: After the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs negotiated a contract for the sale of the property to James P. and Viola Peak. The contract contained a provision which is set forth in the footnote.1 Subsequently, the Peaks refused to complete the purchase, and the defendant is seeking specific performance of the contract in a suit which is still pending in the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County. Coronet Motel, Inc. v. Peak, Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County, No. 78859. In the trial of the case now before us, the plaintiffs offered no evidence of the fulfilment of the condition precedent contained in the quoted provision of the contract.

A real estate broker is entitled to a commission when, but only when, he produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase on the terms prescribed by the seller. Richter v. Drenckhahn, 147 Conn. 496, 500, 163 A.2d 109; Metz v. Hvass Construction Co., 144 Conn. 535, 536, 135 A.2d 363. The burden of proving those facts is on the broker. Lesser v. Altnacraig Convalescent Home, Inc., 144 Conn. 488, 491, 133 A.2d 908.

[712]*712The contract between the defendant and the Peaks clearly sets up a condition precedent to the Peaks’ obligation to purchase. Until this condition had been fulfilled, it cannot be said that the Peaks were ready, willing or able to buy on the terms prescribed. See Eames v. Mayo, 97 Conn. 725, 727, 117 A. 802. The plaintiffs, therefore, failed to prove their right to a commission.

There is no error.

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

Related

Reyher v. Finkeldey
189 A.3d 179 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2018)
Weichert Realtors v. Zink, No. Cv94 0140213 S (Oct. 22, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7917 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Ditchkus Real Estate Co. v. Storm
592 A.2d 959 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1991)
Ditchkus Real Estate Co. v. Storm, No. Cv89 02 99 84s (Sep. 12, 1990)
1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1915 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1990)
Halperin v. Pine Plaza Corporation
428 A.2d 340 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1980)
Bell v. Warren Development Corp.
319 A.2d 299 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1974)
Rzucidlo v. Newtown Realty, Inc.
316 A.2d 514 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1974)
Rzucidlo v. Newtown Realty, Inc.
30 Conn. Supp. 337 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1974)
Peatt v. Brown
272 A.2d 316 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1970)
Setaro v. Botelho
239 A.2d 560 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1967)
Grillo v. Howe
239 A.2d 59 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 A.2d 378, 152 Conn. 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menard-v-coronet-motel-inc-conn-1965.