Hansen v. Snell, 9169
| Decision Date | 16 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 9169,9169 |
| Citation | 11 Utah 2d 64,354 P.2d 1070 |
| Parties | d 64 Lewis F. HANSEN, dba Hansen Realty Company, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ivy B. SNELL, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Richards, Bird & Hart, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Elias Hansen, Salt Lake City, for respondent.
The plaintiff, a real estate broker, sued for his commission for finding a buyer for defendant's property. The trial court found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
The property is defendant's dwelling which also contains apartments. Inasmuch as plaintiff had formerly served her as a real estate broker, she called and told him that some buyers were interested in her property and that he probably should have the sale. He brought her a real estate listing card and got her to sign it. It contains the sales agency contract. On one line of it these words appear 'Price $_____ cash.' In the blank space is written 43,000 and following the word 'cash' was handwritten 'terms to suit the seller.'
In November, 1958, plaintiff obtained a written offer from a buyer stating it was ready, willing and able to purchase the property for $43,000 cash or 'On terms to suit the seller.' This purchaser gave the plaintiff $1,000 earnest money, which he deposited to the bank account of the defendant, apparently in an effort to persuade her that she had sold her property. In a conversation with the plaintiff and another real estate agent she would not agree to any terms proposed by them, and at that time would not state what terms would be acceptable to her. See justifies this refusal in part on the ground that her husband was then seriously ill; (He later passed away,) and that she insisted upon terms because she is dependent upon this property and desires a steady income over a long period rather than cash, which would need reinvestment and management.
After consultation with her attorney she indicated that the terms of sale would have to be $5,000 down and $400 per month, plus 10% interest. The prospective purchaser would not agree to these terms but said he would agree to any reasonable terms, specifically objecting to the 10% interest.
The plaintiff claims that he had performed his service as a real estate agent by finding a ready, willing and able purchaser upon reasonable terms, and that the defendant's conduct is but a subterfuge to avoid her commitment under the contract. He argues that she cannot refuse to co- operate or deliberately obstruct the sale and prevent him from recovering his commission. 1 The trial court made no finding that she did so but agreed with the plaintiff's contention that he had performed his duty by finding a buyer willing to purchase for cash or on reasonable terms, ruling that where no interest rate is specified in the contract, the rate of 6% set by statute 2 on money owed should be implied. This may be correct where there is a deferred payment of a balance of money payable. 3 However, that is not the situation here. The plaintiff is seeking to hold the defendant to the contract she signed; and he is entitled to do so. But by the same token, he is limited by the terms of the promise he exacted from her. It was the plaintiff who presented her with the contract. At the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Bank of Standish v. Curry
...v. Union Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 90 Ill.App.3d 1141, 46 Ill.Dec. 406, 414 N.E.2d 128 (1980); Malaker Corp., supra; Hansen v. Snell, 11 Utah 2d 64, 354 P.2d 1070 (1960); Richards v. Oliver, 162 Cal.App.2d 548, 328 P.2d 544 (1958).13 Bahls, supra at 219. See Jamestowne On Signal, supra at 565,......
-
Union State Bank v. Woell
...Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Hansen v. Snell, 11 Utah 2d 64, 354 P.2d 1070 (1960). Thus contracts must be definite enough to enable a court to ascertain just what is required of the respective parties in the......
-
Lohse v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 11099
...Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Hansen v. Snell, 11 Utah 2d 64, 354 P.2d 1070 (1960). Thus contracts must be definite enough to enable a court to ascertain just what is required of the respective parties in the......
-
Jamestowne On Signal, Inc. v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Hansen v. Snell, 11 Utah 2d 64, 354 P.2d 1070 (1960). Thus contracts must be definite enough to enable a court to ascertain just what is required of the respective parties in the......