Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1965 |
| Citation | 152 Conn. 710,207 A.2d 378 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Antoinette MENARD et al. v. CORONET MOTEL, INC. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Lester Katz, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Peter B. Sullivan, Hartford, with whom was Robert A. Argazzi, Berlin, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY and SHANNON, JJ.
The plaintiffs brought this action to recover a real estate commission which they claimed to have earned in the sale of the defendant's real estate. They now appeal from a judgment rendered for the defendant.
The finding of subordinate facts, which is not attacked, discloses the following situation: After the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs negotiated a contract for the sale of the property to James P. and Viola Peak. The contract contained a provision which is set forth in the footnote. 1 Subsequently, the Peaks refused to complete the purchase, and the defendant is seeking specific performance of the contract in a suit which is still pending in the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County. Coronet Motel, Inc. v. Peak, Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County, No. 78859. In the trial of the case now before us, the plaintiffs offered no evidence of the fulfilment of the condition precedent contained in the quoted provision of the contract.
A real estate broker is entitled to a commission when, but only when, he produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase on the terms prescribed by the seller. Richter v. Drenckhahn, 147 Conn. 496, 500, 163 A.2d 109; Metz v. Hvass Construction Co., 144 Conn. 535, 536, 135 A.2d 363. The burden of proving those facts is on the broker. Lesser v. Altnacraig Convalescent Home, Inc., 144 Conn. 488, 491, 133 A.2d 908.
The contract between the defendant and the Peaks clearly sets up a condition precedent to the Peaks' obligation to purchase. Until this condition had been fulfilled, it cannot be said that the Peaks were ready, willing or able to buy on the terms prescribed. See Eames & Co. v. Mayo, 97 Conn. 725, 727, 117 A. 802. The plaintiffs, therefore, failed to prove their right to a commission.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
1 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Scarcelli (In re Oak Knoll Assocs., L.P.)
...(1982). Thus, while a broker can earn a commission merely by procuring a ready, willing, and able buyer, see Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc., 152 Conn. 710, 207 A.2d 378, 379 (1965), the parties can “make the broker's right to a commission dependent on specific conditions, such as the consumm......
-
Reyher v. Finkeldey
...from a third party] who [is] in no way bound to furnish the funds" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Menard v. Coronet Motel , Inc. , 152 Conn. 710, 711–12, 207 A.2d 378 (1965) (broker not entitled to commission under listing agreement where prospective buyers' obligation to purchase wa......
-
Ditchkus Real Estate Co. v. Storm
...not ready or willing to purchase the defendant's property unless a certain contingency was fulfilled. See Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc., 152 Conn. 710, 710-12, 207 A.2d 378 (1965); Setaro v. Botelho, 4 Conn.Cir. 721, 723, 239 A.2d 560 (1967). Thus, the contract between the defendant and RBP......
-
Halperin v. Pine Plaza Corp.
...and when, but only when, he produces a customer willing, ready and able to purchase or lease upon those terms. Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc., 152 Conn. 710, 711, 207 A.2d 378; Rosenfield v. Wall, 94 Conn. 418, 419-20, 109 A. 409. In a case like the present one, when the agency of a broker i......