MONOPOLY REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WORLD BUSINESS BROKERS, 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.
Monopoly Realty appeals a judgment requiring it to share a real estate commission with World Business Brokers under a co-brokerage agreement. The court affirms, holding that the written agreement was supported by adequate consideration (information about the property sale) and was enforceable even though appellee did not assist in the actual sale or hold a listing.
The court holds that the written co-brokerage agreement was enforceable because it was supported by adequate consideration (the information provided) and the contract could not be rescinded after World Business Brokers had performed its obligation by providing that information. World Business Brokers was not required to have a listing or to affirmatively perform any act beyond providing the information.
[1] A co-brokerage agreement between real estate brokers is supported by adequate consideration when one broker provides information that a property is for sale.
[2] A written contract is conclusively presumed to contain the entire agreement of the parties when it imparts a legal obligation without uncertainty as to its object or exte…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When parties deliberately put their engagement into writing, in such terms as impart a legal obligation without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of their engagement, it is as between them, conclusively presumed that the whole engagement and the extent and manner of their undertaking is contained in the writing_ No other language is admissible to show what they meant or intended....”
Establishes the fundamental principle of contract interpretation that written agreements conclusively define the parties' obligations and extrinsic evidence cannot alter their meaning.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonopoly Realty and World Business Brokers, both experienced real estate brokers, signed a co-brokerage agreement for the sale of commercial property.…
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 Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Monopoly Realty, Inc., appeals a final judgment in a contract action awarding appellee, World Business Brokers, Inc., 50% of a real estate commission. We affirm.
Appellant and appellee were both real estate brokers with a number of years of experience. Appellant and appellee signed a co-brokerage agreement for the sale of commercial real estate property. As consideration for the agreement, appellee provided appellant with information that the property was for sale. Appellant eventually sold the property and received a real estate commission.
Appellant sought to avoid sharing the commission with appellee, claiming that appellee had not assisted in the sale and did not even have a listing of the property. Appellant also pointed to correspondence it had sent to the appellee, attempting to rescind the contract between them.
The trial court found that the contract between appellant and appellee, albeit a “bad deal” for appellant: (1) was supported by appropriate consideration (the information that the property was for sale); and (2) could not have been cancelled by appellant after the receipt of the information. The trial court held that appellee had performed its obligation under the terms of the contract and the contract was, therefore, enforceable. We agree.
The hoary principle stated over 100 years ago continues to be the law of Florida:
When parties deliberately put their engagement into writing, in such terms as impart a legal obligation without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of their engagement, it is as between them, conclusively presumed that the whole engagement and the extent and manner of their undertaking is contained in the writing_ No other language is admissible to show what they meant or intended....
Perry v. Woodberry, 26 Fla. 84, 7 So. 483 (1890); see also Juster v. Montgomery Ward Development Corporation, 496 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); J.C. Penney Company, Inc. v. Koff, 345 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Nothing in the agreement imposed a duty on appellee to have a listing or affirmatively perform any act. Once appellee provided the information that the property was for sale, it had complied with the terms of the particular agreement between appellee and appellant. The parties were then bound by their contract.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…im to the contrary, Appellant was unable to cite any authority to back up its contention that it had provided goods or services to Appellee. Appellee cor [*306] rectly distinguishes the facts in Monopoly Realty, Inc. v. World Business Brokers, Inc., 562 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (where experienced real-estate brokers signed written co-brokerage agreement for sale of commercial real estate and, as consideration for agreement, appellee provided appellant with information that property was for sale, trial co…
-
Dennies Contracting Co., Inc. v. Burton H. Hersh, 702 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…of $138,108.00 for Hersh, and after its post trial motions were denied, the company now appeals from the resulting judgment. It is clear that the plaintiffs claim is supported by the law, see Monopoly Realty, Inc. v. World Business Brokers, Inc., 562 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and a view of the evidence, primarily Hersh’s own sworn testimony the jury had a right to accept. We confess that we are skeptical as to the accuracy of a finding that a roofer agreed to pay over $138,000.00 merely for suggesting…
-
Paraiso CU-1, LLC v. PRH Paraiso Four, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. Koff, 345 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Perry v. Woodberry, 26 Fla. 84 (Fla. 1890)
- Juster v. Montgomery Ward Dev. Corp., 496 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)