De Boer v. Geib
| Decision Date | 05 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 77.,77. |
| Parties | DE BOER et al. v. GEIB. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Leonard D. Verdier, Judge.
Action by Henry W. De Boer and another against Fred P. Geib. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Dilley & Dilley, of Grand Rapids, for appellants.
William J. Landman, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
The plaintiffs have brought error to review a judgment of the superior court of Grand Rapids in a suit brought to recover a commission for the sale of real estate. The contract was in writing. The applicable parts are as follows:
‘In consideration of your agreement to use your efforts to find a purchaser, and to list with the Grand Rapids Real Estate Board, the property described on the reverse side of this contract, I hereby grant you the exclusive right and privilege for the term of three months from the date hereof to sell the property described as, etc.
‘If said property is sold before the expiration of this agreement by you, by myself or any other person, I agree to pay you a commission of five (5) per cent on the first five thousand dollars ($5,000) and four (4) per cent on the remainder.
‘You shall be paid the above commission in the event that you produce a purchaser, ready, willing and able, to purchase the said property.’
The material facts are undisputed. The plaintiffs did not procure a purchaser ready, willing, and able to purchase the property. The defendant sold it without the aid of the plaintiffs within the three months' period during which they had the exclusive right of sale. The sale price was the same as that listed with the plaintiffs. The defendant denies liability on the theory that his promise to pay a commission if he himself sold the property within the three months' period during which the plaintiffs were given the exclusive right of sale is limited by the following subsequent clause of the contract: ‘You shall be paid the above commission in the event that you produce a purchaser, ready, willing and able to purchase the said property.’
The trial court adopted defendant's construction of the contract and entered a judgment in his favor.
We cannot agree to this construction. It entirely eliminates from the contract that provision wherein defendant absolutely promises to pay a commission to the plaintiffs regardless of who sells the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great Northern Nekoosa v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
...part. Harrow, 64 F.3d at 1025 (quoting Johnston v. Miller, 326 Mich. 682, 40 N.W.2d 770, 771-72 (1950)) (also cited DeBoer v. Geib, 255 Mich. 542, 238 N.W. 226 (1931) ("A construction which entirely neutralizes one provision should not be adopted if the contract is susceptible of another wh......
-
Ray Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...682, 40 N.W.2d 770, 771-72 (1950) (emphasis added) (quoting Prowant v. Sealy, 77 Okl. 244, 187 P. 235 (1919)); see also DeBoer v. Geib, 255 Mich. 542, 238 N.W. 226 (1931) ("A construction which entirely neutralizes one provision should not be adopted if the contract is susceptible of anothe......
-
Bloomfield Estates v. City of Birmingham
...that would entirely neutralize part of the language that is being construed should be discarded. See, e.g., DeBoer v. Geib, 255 Mich. 542, 544, 238 N.W. 226 (1931). Because the majority's dictionary-derived definition of "residential purposes" violates well-established rules of construction......
-
Holiday Homes of St. John, Inc. v. Lockhart
...the owner, or any other person entitles broker to commission upon sale regardless of who was the "procuring cause"), De Boer v. Geib, 255 Mich. 542, 238 N.W. 226, 226 (1931) (same holding where contract promises commission if property is sold "by you, by myself or any other person"). We are......