Staples v. Schonfield

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

Staples v. Schonfield

7 Fla. Supp. 152

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedFebruary 7, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Fla. Supp. 152 (Staples v. Schonfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Staples v. Schonfield, 7 Fla. Supp. 152 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

STANLEY MILLEDGE, Circuit Judge.

I think that the directed verdict was correct. The instrument sued on is not, in my opinion, a contract granting an exclusive right to sell, it is a mere appointment of an agent revocable at will. A listing, exclusive or not, can become a contract upon being acted on by the broker and a purchaser produced or a sale made.

In the instrument sued on the plaintiff does not pay anything nor does he promise to do anything. The instrument recited no consideration and the record suggests no proof of a consideration. In Flynn v. McGinty (Fla.), 61 So. 2d 318, the broker promised to “endeavor to produce a purchaser.”

The defendant cites Flinders v. Hunter (Utah), 208 Pac. 526, which is in point and quite persuasive.

The judgment is affirmed.

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