Burt v. Heikkala
| Citation | 44 Wn.2d 52,265 P.2d 280 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 32550,32550 |
| Parties | BURT, v. HEIKKALA et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Ned Hall, Vancouver, for appellants.
Dale W. Read, Vancouver, for respondent.
The plaintiff is a real-estate broker licensed to do business in Washington and Oregon. On May 8, 1951, defendants gave him an exclusive agency for six months to sell their theatre in Woodland, Washington. The pertinent part of the listing contract provides:
* * *' (Italics ours.)
In June, 1951, plaintiff showed the property to one E. H. Dickenson, a prospective buyer from Los Angeles. No sale was consummated on that occasion, but, in September, 1951, Dickenson wrote to defendants about the property. In a letter to plaintiff on September 20, 1951, defendants said:
'This is to notify you that as of November 8, 1951, I am terminating your exclusive listing on the sale of the Woodland Theater.'
The exclusive feature of the listing contract expired by its own terms on November 8, 1951, so that the letter meant nothing and accomplished nothing, unless it terminated the non-exclusive feature of the contract ninety days thereafter, to-wit: February 8, 1952.
Dickenson secretly checked the amount of the theatre admissions at a later time, and, in November, 1951, talked with defendants again about buying the theatre.
Defendants thereafter introduced Dickenson in the community of Woodland as a buyer or prospective buyer of the theatre. Dickenson sold his home in Los Angeles, bought a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Hagan
...though rejected by the trial court, but no additional relief will be granted on appeal in the absence of a cross-appeal. Burt v. Heikkala, 44 Wash.2d 52, 265 P.2d 280; McUne v. Fuqua, 42 Wash.2d 65, 253 P.2d 632; State ex rel. Public Utility Dist. No. 1, etc. v. Schwab, 40 Wash.2d 814, 246 ......
-
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of Tacoma
...considered a respondent, rather than an appellant, WNG may nevertheless assign error to trial court findings, Burt v. Heikkala, 44 Wash.2d 52, 54, 265 P.2d 280 (1954), and may offer additional reasons in support of the judgment, even if the trial court rejected such reasoning. Peterson v. H......
-
Bishop v. Norell
...willing and able to buy that entitled the broker to a commission and not the final closing of the sales transaction, Burt v. Heikkala, 44 Wash.2d 52, 265 P.2d 280, it is immaterial if thereafter no actual transfer or consummated sale takes place because of the refusal of the vendor to conve......
-
Record Realty, Inc. v. Hull
...to his commission if he provides the seller with a buyer who is 'ready, willing, and able' to purchase the property. Burt v. Heikkala, 44 Wash.2d 52, 265 P.2d 280 (1954); Johnston v. Smith, 43 Wash.2d 603, 262 P.2d 530 (1953); Spencer v. Houtt, 29 Wash.2d 252, 186 P.2d 613 (1947); Haynes v.......