Vivian Research Systems Corp. v. Mooty

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vivian Research Systems Corp. v. Mooty

190 So. 2d 441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 1966

DocketNo. 66-2

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 2d 441 (Vivian Research Systems Corp. v. Mooty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vivian Research Systems Corp. v. Mooty, 190 So. 2d 441 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal a final judgment, which was based upon a directed verdict, in their action to recover a real estate broker’s commission. The theory of plaintiffs’ case in the trial court was that they had an oral exclusive listing on property which was sold to a purchaser they had not presented. The verdict was properly directed for the defendants on the issue of an exclusive listing upon the law as set forth in South Florida Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247 (1922).

The main thrust of. this appeal is upon the theory that plaintiffs presented a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase upon the terms set by the owner. Our review of the record in the light of this contention convinces us that error has not been demonstrated because there was no showing that the buyer and seller had reached an agreement upon the terms of the proposed sale. See McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 781; Melvin v. West, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 156; Singer v. M. Grant, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 52. 7 A.L.R.3d 688.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal a final judgment, which was based upon a directed verdict, in their action to recover a real estate broker’s commission. The theory of plaintiffs’ case in the trial court was that they had an oral exclusive listing on property which was sold to a purchaser they had not presented. The verdict was properly directed for the defendants on the issue of an exclusive listing upon the law as set forth in South Florida Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247 (1922).

The main thrust of. this appeal is upon the theory that plaintiffs presented a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase upon the terms set by the owner. Our review of the record in the light of this contention convinces us that error has not been demonstrated because there was no showing that the buyer and seller had reached an agreement upon the terms of the proposed sale. See McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 781; Melvin v. West, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 156; Singer v. M. Grant, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 52. 7 A.L.R.3d 688.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vivian-research-systems-corp-v-mooty-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack