Thompson v. Waller

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Waller

188 Misc. 316, 70 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2405

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 21, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 Misc. 316 (Thompson v. Waller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Waller, 188 Misc. 316, 70 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Memorandum The so-called binder by its very terms was conditional, and there was therefore no meeting of the minds of the sellers and proposed purchaser. Prior to such meeting of the minds, defendants could withdraw their property from the market or could take it out of the hands of the plaintiff as broker. Even if it be assumed that the so-called binder had the force of a contract, it did not bind the purchaser, as it was not signed by him, and the purported agent who signed it was not authorized in writing. (Beal Property Law, § 279, subd. 5.) In the absence of a binding contract, a broker to be entitled to a commission must allege and prove the financial ability of his customer, in addition to his readiness and willingness. (Jaffe v. Lederer, 113 Misc. 356.)

The judgment should be reversed upon the law, with $30 costs to defendants, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Mao Crate, Steinbrink and Fennelly, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Memorandum The so-called binder by its very terms was conditional, and there was therefore no meeting of the minds of the sellers and proposed purchaser. Prior to such meeting of the minds, defendants could withdraw their property from the market or could take it out of the hands of the plaintiff as broker. Even if it be assumed that the so-called binder had the force of a contract, it did not bind the purchaser, as it was not signed by him, and the purported agent who signed it was not authorized in writing. (Beal Property Law, § 279, subd. 5.) In the absence of a binding contract, a broker to be entitled to a commission must allege and prove the financial ability of his customer, in addition to his readiness and willingness. (Jaffe v. Lederer, 113 Misc. 356.)

The judgment should be reversed upon the law, with $30 costs to defendants, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Mao Crate, Steinbrink and Fennelly, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 Misc. 316, 70 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-waller-nyappterm-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack