Lipton v. Johansen
Decision Date | 12 July 1951 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | LIPTON v. JOHANSEN et al. Civ. 17964. |
George I. Devor, Norman Newmark, Maurice Thorner, Richard L. Weiss, all of Los Angeles, for appellants.
Gold & Needleman, J. Geo. Gold, of Beverly Hills, Ruth Bernfeld, Sacramento, for respondent.
Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, seeks to recover a commission.
Her second amended complaint alleges that on August 24, 1948, she procured a buyer able, ready and willing to purchase defendants' real property located in Bel Air, Los Angeles. That the purchase price agreed upon between defendants and the buyer was $165,000, and that defendants by an instrument in writing agreed to pay plaintiff a commission of $8,250 for her services as such real estate broker.
Defendants' answer affirmatively alleges the execution of a deposit receipt on August 24, 1948, by the terms of which they agreed to sell their property to one Donald F. Duncan. It is further alleged that an escrow was entered into on the same day; that the deposit receipt and the escrow instructions "together set forth the full terms and conditions of the entire real estate transaction"; and that the payment of the broker's commission of $8,250 was predicated upon a condition precedent, i.e., the close of the escrow, which condition was never met.
From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
The findings of the trial court may be summarized as follows:
1. That the deposit receipt standing alone and signed by the purchaser, the appellants and respondent was a valid, binding contract between all the parties thereto;
2. That respondent was not bound by the terms of the escrow instructions;
3. That the escrow instructions did not make the close of escrow a condition precedent to respondent's right to recover commissions;
4. That respondent procured a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase upon the terms and conditions fixed by appellants;
5. That respondent was entitled to a commission of $8,250 for her services.
It is here contended that such findings are contrary to law and are not supported by the evidence.
The record herein discloses that immediately prior to August 24, 1948, appellants and respondent had numerous discussions regarding the sale of appellants' Bel Air property to Mr. Donald F. Duncan, who had been introduced to appellants by respondent. At this time appellants verbally agreed to pay respondent a 5% commission on the sale. In accordance with detailed instructions regarding the terms of sale which had been given to her by Mr. Johansen, respondent prepared several copies of a deposit receipt.
On the morning of August 24th, the parties met at appellants' home. An inventory of the furnishings was checked room by room and approved by Mr. Duncan, whereupon the deposit receipt was executed by all parties. Pursuant thereto, the buyer agreed to purchase and appellants agreed to sell "the above described property on the terms and conditions herein stated." Appellants also agreed "to pay the above signed agent as commission the sum of $8,250.00, or one-half of the deposit should same be forfeited." The deposit on the sale was $5,000.
The parties then proceeded to the escrow department of a leading bank, where respondent handed the executed deposit receipt to the escrow clerk and told the latter to draw escrow instructions conforming to such document. Respondent then joined Mrs. Johansen at the back of the escrow booth and did not participate in the discussions of Mr. Johansen, Mr. Duncan and the latter's attorney during which time changes were made in the terms of the sale. Respondent testified that she did not know that the provisions of the escrow instructions differed from the deposit receipt until some time later. She did not sign the instructions; they were not shown to her and she was not consulted with respect thereto.
Among these provisions was one to the following effect: "Pay at close of escrow any encumbrances necessary to place this title in the condition called for and the following: Pay commission of $8,250.00 to Ruth Lipton Realty Co. ***."
Mr. Johansen testified that respondent took an active part in the discussion of each point raised at the escrow instruction conference. He also testified that he and his wife and Mr. Duncan signed the deposit receipt in the escrow office while the escrow instructions were being typed; that respondent stated: "This is a deposit receipt which it is necessary for you and Mrs. Johansen to sign, as it becomes part of the escrow, and is brought into escrow." In reply to the question: "Did you at any time ask Mrs. Lipton whether she would agree to be paid her commission only if the escrow closed?", Mr. Johansen stated:
On rebuttal, respondent Lipton testified as follows:
It was stipulated that appellants complied with all the conditions of the escrow instructions but that the buyer defaulted; that appellants had filed an action for damages for breach of contract against the purchaser; and that the property had been sold to a third party.
Appellants argue that the deposit receipt did not constitute a valid, binding contract between the parties because its terms "are too indefinite, too uncertain, too unintelligible to be enforced as a contract at law or in equity."
They assert that it is impossible to determine from the terms of the document either the price to be paid for the property or the manner of payment; nor what or how much furniture is included in the sale.
The deposit receipt acknowledges receipt from the buyer of a $5,000 deposit; describes the property adequately but not with particularity; states the property is to be furnished as per approved inventory to be placed in escrow. The purchase price is stated to be $165,000. "The balance of the purchase price is to be paid on or before Sept. 14, 1948, as follows to-wit: $75,000 cash to be deposited in escrow; balance of $90,000 to be paid over a period of three years." Then follow the particular amounts payable over the three year period, plus interest at 5%.
The trial court resolved the apparent conflict in these terms by its finding that the allegations of paragraph three of the second amended complaint were true, to the effect that the purchase price was $165,000, and the terms of sale were as follows:
"Seventy-five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars in cash to be paid on or before September 14, 1948, and the balance of Ninety Thousand ($90,000.00) Dollars to be paid on or before three (3) years thereafter with interest at the rate of five (5%) per cent per annum"; followed by the particular amounts payable each year.
A contract is not invalidated merely because, on its face, it is ambiguous or uncertain, but on the contrary, such uncertainties may be resolved by parol evidence or by interpretation by the court as to its meaning. Meyers v. Nolan, 18 Cal.App.2d 319, 322, 63 P.2d 1216.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hackin v. Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co.
...per se does not impair the validity of a contract. Henderson v. Jacobs, 73 Ariz. 195, 239 P.2d 1082 (1952); Lipton v. Johansen, 105 Cal.App.2d 363, 233 P.2d 648 (1951), but only when coupled with a lack of meeting of the minds of the parties. H & W Tool Co. v. Meshew, 5 Ariz.App. 180, 424 P......
-
Steve Schmidt & Co. v. Berry
... ... 170.) Further, the right to the commission is not affected by failure of either party to carry out the agreement. (Lipton v. Johansen (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 363, 369, 233 P.2d 648.) ... In the instant case there is nothing in the listing agreement to ... ...
-
Williamson's Estate, In re, 17294
...written agreement between them upon the terms provided in the contract of employment of the broker * * *." Lipton v. Johansen, 105 Cal.App.2d 363, 369, 233 P.2d 648, 652. In probate, this rule has these limitations: (1) the broker's contract shall provide for payment of a commission to him ......
-
Lathrop v. Gauger
...benefit of the vendor, who has an option either to declare a forfeiture or to enforce the contract' (citation).' Lipton v. Johansen, 105 Cal.App.2d 363, 370, 233 P.2d 648, 652. The cases cited by defendant, where pertinent, are distinguishable by the character of the phraseology of the buye......