STADLER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SERVICES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A real estate broker who disclosed confidential information about a business sale to another broker, which was then passed along through intermediaries to the ultimate buyer, was not the procuring cause of the sale and therefore not entitled to a commission.
A broker is not entitled to a real estate commission when its only connection to the sale is the accidental disclosure of confidential information that was passed through intermediaries contrary to explicit instructions.
[1] A real estate broker is not the procuring cause of a sale when its involvement is limited to the accidental disclosure of confidential information that reaches the buyer…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStadler Commercial Real Estate Services disclosed the seller's identity and business figures to a cooperating broker with instructions not to reveal t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Procuring Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a plaintiff real estate broker from a final summary judgment in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission. The facts of this case are most complex, and we will not burden this opinion with an extensive recitation of same. Suffice it to say, however, that the evidence in the record fully supports the final judgment under review because it demonstrates that the plaintiff broker was not the procuring cause of the sale of the waste company business involved in this case. We, accordingly, affirm.
The plaintiff broker’s only connection with this sale was that (a) it disclosed the seller’s identity and certain figures connected with the waste company business to a cooperating second broker, who represented an ultimately unsuccessful purchaser of the said business, with an admonition not to reveal this information to anyone; (b) the second broker disclosed the above information to a third broker, contrary to the plaintiff broker’s specific instructions, also with an admonition not to reveal this information to anyone; (c) the third broker then disclosed the above information to the ultimate buyer, against the specific instructions of the second broker, and ultimately effected the sale of the said waste business. Based on this scenario, it is obvious that the plaintiff had no role in bringing about the instant sale, and its connection therewith was entirely accidental. It was therefore not entitled to a commission in this case. Shuler v. Allen, 76 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1955); Warren Hunnicutt, Jr., Inc. v. Gleason, 462 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Scott v. Downey, 314 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shuler v. Allen, 76 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1955)
- Warren Hunnicutt, JR., Inc. v. Gleason, 462 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Scott v. Downey, 314 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)