Richards v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 06 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11686,11686 |
| Citation | 531 P.2d 538,111 Ariz. 415 |
| Parties | Juanita RICHARDS dba Richards Realty, Appellant, v. Florence SIMPSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Vanlandingham & Little by John Vanlandingham, Phoenix, for appellant.
J. William Moore, Phoenix, for appellee.
Juanita Richards, dba Richards Realty, a licensed real estate broker, sued Mrs. Florence Simpson to recover a real estate commission for the uncompleted sale of land owned by Mrs. Simpson. A directed verdict was granted in favor of defendant Simpson from which judgment the plaintiff Richards appeals.
Although the plaintiff raises several questions on appeal, we believe the answer to only one is dispositive of the matter: Was there a valid offer of sale by the defendant and acceptance by the buyer produced by the plaintiff so as to entitle the plaintiff to an earned commission?
The facts necessary for a determination of this case are as follows. In 1965 Juanita Richards, an Arizona real estate broker, placed an advertisement in a newspaper in which she solicited information about parcels of land for sale. Mrs. Simpson, the owner of two patented mining claims in the Prescott National Forest, in response to this advertisement, mailed plaintiff a memo about her property. The memo read as follows:
If you would like more information you can call
me at WH5-8501.
/s/ Mrs. F. Simpson "
During the next five years plaintiff and defendant communicated occasionally by phone and met once in person. The terms of the offer of sale were changed from time to time to reflect what the defendant would take for her property in light of the changing economic conditions. In the fall of 1970 plaintiff found a prospective buyer, a Mrs. Baker. Mrs. Baker had in mind to subdivide the land and was particularly concerned about problems of roads and access to the property. Defendant informed the plaintiff that for the past thirty years she had used a Forest Service road for ingress and egress but that she possessed no guarantees or assurances from the Forest Service that the road would always be available.
On 14 November 1970 plaintiff prepared a 'Purchase Contract and Receipt' for the sale of the property to Mrs. Baker. The contract provided for $1,000 deposit and $1,000 more when 'Forest Service assures the use of the existing road to the property.' The contract also provided for lot release provisions when $2,500 was paid. Defendant refused to agree to these two provisions and had her attorney prepare escrow instructions which contained no provisions about the road or release provisions. The instructions further provided that the instructions had to be signed by the buyer by 20 March 1971. These escrow instructions were never signed by Mrs. Baker. Plaintiff at this time prepared and submitted alternative escrow instructions signed by Mrs. Baker with the statement 'to be accepted by seller on or before April 20, 1971.' These new instructions contained the following:
Defendant did not agree and on 2 April her attorney wrote plaintiff's attorney as follows:
'This is to notify your client Juanita Richards that the escrow instructions No. 02018610--2, with Transamerica Title and Insurance Company, have been cancelled since it was not accepted, and of course my client Florence Simpson would not accept the counter offer submitted.
'This is further notice that Florence Simpson has withdrawn the land from the market; and further to notify your client Juanita Richards that any listing of said property with her is immediately cancelled.
'My client further requests no future contacts be made except through her attorney.'
Thereafter, on 14 April, plaintiff prepared new escrow instructions embodying the original offer of defendant. Mrs. Baker signed these instructions as buyer, but defendant refused to agree to the sale and plaintiff brought suit.
It is plaintiff's contention that she found a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase on the precise terms of the offer of sale and that therefore she is entitled to her commission. We do not agree. From the facts in the instant case, it does not appear that the plaintiff did in fact find a buyer ready, willing and able to accept defendant's offer until after defendant had, in fact, withdrawn that offer.
Escrow instructions may serve to comply with the statute of frauds, T. D. Dennis Builder, Inc. v. Goff, 101 Ariz. 211, 418 P.2d 367 (1966), and had any of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ariz. Custom Contracting, Inc. v. Green
...for guidance."). "To create mutual consent and therefore a contract, acceptance of the offer must be unequivocal." Richards v. Simpson, 111 Ariz. 415, 417 (1975); see also Clark v. Compania Ganadera de Cananea, S.A., 94 Ariz. 391, 400 (1963) ("An acceptance must comply exactly with the requ......
- State ex rel. Berger v. Marquardt, 11738