De Freitas v. Cote
| Citation | 174 N.E.2d 371,342 Mass. 474 |
| Parties | John J. F. DE FREITAS v. Israel COTE et al. |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1961 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
M. David Scheinman, New Bedford, for plaintiff.
Charles R. Desmarais and William H. Carey, New Bedford, for defendants, submitted a brief.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and SPIEGEL, JJ.
In this action of contract the plaintiff, a real estate broker, seeks to recover a commission for producing a purchaser who was ready, willing, and able to buy a parcel of land with the buildings thereon belonging to the defendants.
On July 5, 1958, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a written agreement, which created an exclusive agency in the plaintiff for a period of six months. The selling price stated in the agreement was $16,800.
The plaintiff did procure a purchaser and a written agreement 1 was entered into by the purchaser and the defendants on July 14, 1958, for the price of $16,720.
The G.I. appraisal, mentioned in the agreement of sale, was less than the agreed selling price and presumably the prospective purchaser did not a receive a G.I. loan. The defendants had no intention of selling for the figure mentioned in the G.I. appraisal. There was evidence, however, that the buyer was willing to pay the agreed price for the defendants' property; that he successfully negotiated with the Fairhaven Institution for Savings to obtain a conventional mortgage in the amount of $12,800; that he had arranged with a friend of his for a loan of $3,000; that he had over $1,000 of his own money; and that these sums would be adequate to pay the purchase price of $16,720. There was further testimony that the prospective purchaser wrote a letter to the defendants on September 5, 1958, stating that he had the necessary money to buy the property 'at the agreed price,' and that he was ready to go through with the purchase; that the plaintiff asked the defendant Mrs. Cote, within two weeks after the agreement of sale was signed, to sell but that she refused; that after the time of performance had expired the proposed buyer purchased another property for $12,000; that the prospective purchaser had his $100 deposit refunded after the time of performance had expired; and that after the expiration of the time of performance set out in the agreement of sale, the defendant Mrs. Cote contacted the prospective buyer and offered to go through with the sale of the premises. Mrs. Cote in her testimony stated that she was always ready to comply with the agreement.
At the close of the evidence the plaintiff presented certain requests for instructions to the jury. Upon completion of the charge, the plaintiff duly excepted to the refusal of the judge to give several of these requests. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
There was error in the trial judge's refusal to give the plaintiff's request numbered 11. 2 The agreement of sale entered into between the defendants and the prospective purchaser is not a very clear or self defining document. It is a familiar principle of the law of contracts that an instrument must be construed according to the parties' intent. 'We must put ourselves in the place of the parties to the instrument and give its words their plain and ordinary meaning in the light of the circumstances and in view of the subject matter.' McQuade v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 333 Mass. 229, 233, 129 N.E.2d 923, 926; Malaguti v. Rosen, 262 Mass. 555, 560, 160 N.E. 532. The essence of the agreement of sale, in the present case, is contained in the language found in the first sentence of the agreement, 'the sellers * * * agree to sell, and the buyer * * * agrees to buy the above mentioned property for the sum of Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Dollars ($16,720.00) * * *.' This is the true purpose and intent of the parties in entering into this purchase and sale agreement. The language found later on in the agreement that 'this sale is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selfridge v. Jama
...incentive payments are to be made only to the extent that such payments were made at the time of termination. See De Freitas v. Cote , 342 Mass. 474, 174 N.E.2d 371, 373 (1961) (words of contract are to be given “their plain and ordinary meaning in the light of the circumstances and in view......
-
Nstar Elec. Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Utilities
...into the parties' agreement, we are guided first by the plain meaning of the language chosen by the parties. See deFreitas v. Cote, 342 Mass. 474, 477, 174 N.E.2d 371 (1961). Here, the parties plainly stated that the rates to be implemented under the agreement were those “set forth in [the ......
-
ER Holdings, Inc. v. Norton Co.
...meeting. One familiar maxim is that a contract should be construed in accordance with its plain meaning. See DeFreitas v. Cote, 342 Mass. 474, 477, 174 N.E.2d 371, 373 (1961) (citations omitted). In the absence of ambiguity, Massachusetts law enforces the express terms of a contract. See Li......
-
Feakes v. Bozyczko
...the language employed, and will attempt to ascertain the objective sought to be accomplished by the parties. Cf. DeFreitas v. Cote, 342 Mass. 474, 477, 174 N.E.2d 371 (1961); McQuade v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 333 Mass. 229, 233, 129 N.E.2d 923 (1955); Malaguti v. Rosen, 262 M......