Lindquist v. Burklew, 1628
| Decision Date | 10 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1628,1628 |
| Citation | 123 So.2d 261 |
| Parties | E. Hugo LINDQUIST and Barbara Lindquist, his wife, Appellants, v. Jack E. BURKLEW, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lindsey & Cargell, St. Petersburg Beach, for appellants.
Zewadski, Di Vito & Chadwick, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment pertaining to a real estate broker's commission.
The complaint, in substance, alleged: that the broker, appellee, was employed by the owners of certain property, the appellants, to '* * * procure for them a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to purchase said property at a price to be arrived at by a public action * * *,' and that the appellee was to be paid for his services as broker-auctioneer a commission of 7 1/2% of the sale price; that the property was auctioned off for $15,450; that a contract for sale, which was prepared by the broker, was then entered into between the sellers, the purchaser and the broker whereby the purchaser was to make an immediate payment of $200 on the purchase price as earnest money, a payment of $5,050 in one week, and the balance by the assumption of an existing mortgage within 30 days. The contract contained the following provisions:
The complaint further alleged that the purchaser, after making the earnest money payment of $200, renounced the contract; the owners took no steps to enforce it and refused to pay the broker the full amount of commission which he claimed: namely, 7 1/2% of the sale price, or $1,358.75.
The owners by their answer denied that the broker had produced a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to buy said property, but admitted the other allegations of the complaint.
Upon the broker's motion for summary final judgment, based upon the pleadings, the owner court entered judgment against the owners for $1,358.75.
In entering said judgment the lower court reasoned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coastal Caisson Drill Co., Inc. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
...120, 186 So. 675 (Fla.1939); Sol Walker & Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 362 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Lindquist v. Burklew, 123 So.2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). It is also generally held that a provision added to a form contract takes precedence over a printed, "boilerplate" term......
-
Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 63-355
...any doubt in their terms or ambiguity, such doubt should be resolved adversely to the draftsman of the instrument. See: Lindquist v. Burklew, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 261; City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School District, supra; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Gray, 1937, 289 Ill.App. 367, 7 N.E.2d......
-
Miami Nat. Bank v. Fink, 64-489
...is construed against the party who prepared or presented same. See: Brandon v. Pittman, 117 Fla. 678, 158 So. 443; Lindquist v. Burklew, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 261. It is further elementary that typewritten information prevails over printed matter. See: McDonald v. Connell, Fla.App.1963, 1......
-
Abel v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Manatee County, 7419
...earned at the time he either procures a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy * * *, or consummates a sale * * *.' Lindquist v. Burklew, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 261, is a case closely in point, and in the course of the opinion, this 2nd District Court 'Where a broker is employed to procu......