Frederick v. Curtright
| Decision Date | 08 December 1955 |
| Citation | 137 Cal.App.2d 610,290 P.2d 875 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Lloyd A. FREDERICK, doing business as Lloyd A. Frederick Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George A. CURTRIGHT, Customeraft Chinchilla Equipment Corporation, a California corporation, and Customeraft Industries, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 20921. |
William Strong, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
Sylvester Hoffmann, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant Curtright and two corporations to recover the sum of $6,000 allegedly earned as a licensed business opportunity and securities broker for negotiating the sale of certain property of the defendants. To plaintiff's fifth amended complaint a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend; judgment was entered for defendants and plaintiff appeals.
The complaint set out as exhibits three contracts. The first was dated May 8, 1953. It gave plaintiff the exclusive right to sell 'stock as listed above, for the 60 day period from May 8, 1953 to July 8, 1953 and within 30 days thereafter to parties with whom said Broker negotiated during said period, provided said Broker notifies me in writing of said negotiation.' It provided 'If a sale or exchange is effected during their agency for the above described stock, I agree to pay them 10 per cent of the selling price, as commission for their services, and to furnish satisfactory title to said stock.' Typed on the face of the writing was 'This Exclusive Extended to August 8, 1953.' Above was written 'Price $60,000, Terms Cash.' The second agreement was dated September 30, 1953 and was in the form of an offer by Robert A. Rub to defendants, accepted by them, to purchase all stock of the two corporations owned by Curtright 'plus all of the machinery and equipment used in connection with said businesses now owned by George A. Curtright * * *.' 1 The named price was $60,000 of which $25,000 was down payment, $5,000 to be paid within a year plus $1,000 per month or more until paid. It provided Over the signatures of defendant corporations was the following: 'I hereby agree to pay to LLOYD A. FREDERICK COMPANY as commission ten percent (10%) of the selling price for the sale of the above stock.' The third agreement was between defendants and Robert A. Rub and Saul Rub; it was signed by them and by defendants October 22, 1953. It was a contract fot the sale of other property of the defendants, as hereinafter explained. It contained no provision for the payment of a commission to plaintiff. It was alleged in the earlier complaints, but not in the fifth amended complaint, that the sale was never consummated.
It was not alleged in the complaint that plaintiff procured Rub or any other person ready, able and willing to purchase the property within the time specified in the employment agreement nor was it alleged there was any extension of the term of plaintiff's employment. In the absence of such allegations the complaint failed to state a cause of action on the contract of employment. Augustine v. Trucco, 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 237, 268 P.2d 780; Ford v. Palisades Corp., 101 Cal.App.2d 491, 497, 225 P.2d 545; Lisle v. E. B. & A. L. Stone Co., 103 Cal.App. 409, 284 P. 680; 9 Cal.Jur.2d 256, 267.
If plaintiff earned a commission it was under the second contract which provided for the payment of a commission for a sale of the property. It was alleged that although the term of the agreement of emplolyment had expired, plaintiff procured Robert A. Rub to purchase the shares of stock and other personal property by the agreement of September 30 and that Rub continued ready, able and willing to purchase in accordance with the October 22nd agreement, but that defendants refused to consummate the sale or to pay a commission.
As we have seen, the offer made by Rub September 30th was conditional: It provided for a further agreement to be drawn and accepted by the purchaser by October 5th and it left it optional with him to approve or disapprove the contract when it should be drawn. It was not a firm offer to purchase the property and it did not preclude defendants from stipulating any terms they sought to impose by the agreement which they were to prepare and submit to Rub. It was an agreement to enter into an agreement by October 5th if there should be a meeting of the minds of the parties as to all matters that had not been settled. Inspection of the October 22nd agreement discloses that there were many...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillippe v. Shapell Industries
...purchase of different property unless the broker's written employment agreement covers the other property. (Frederick v. Curtright (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 610, 614, 290 P.2d 875.) The only writing signed by Shapell referred to the Filiorum property, not to the Great Lakes property, and is not......
-
Turner v. Waldron Realty
...did not cover such services; he had no written contract authorizing the same; and he may not recover therefor. (Frederick v. Curtright, 137 Cal.App.2d 610, 614, 290 P.2d 875; Augustine v. Trucco, 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 237, 268 P.2d 780; Herzog v. Blatt, 80 Cal.App.2d 340, 343, 180 P.2d The 7 ......
-
Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, Inc.
...purchase of different property unless the broker's written employment covers the other property. (See, e.g. Frederick v. Curtright (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 610, 614, 290 P.2d 875.) Thus, it must be concluded that the writings are insufficient under the statute of frauds to sustain Phillippe's...
-
Collins v. Vickter Manor, Inc.
...prospective customer. (See Lawrence Block Co. v. Palston (1954), supra, 123 Cal.App.2d 300, 266 P.2d 856; Frederick v. Curtright (1955), 137 Cal.App.2d 610, 614-615, 290 P.2d 875; Ridgway v. Chase (1954), 122 Cal.App.2d 840, 847, 850(8), 265 P.2d 603; Love v. Gulyas (1948), 87 Cal.App.2d 60......