C. H. TEDDER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE RIGGIN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a rehearing in a case involving a real estate agent suing for commissions. The court clarified that the action was based on a breach of warranty of authority, not a direct contract with the purchaser.
The measure of damages for a breach of warranty of authority by an assumed agent is distinct from cases involving direct purchaser contracts or personally binding unauthorized contracts.
“this action is brought by a real estate agent one who assumed without authority to act. as agent for the owner of land, to recover the commissions the real estate agent expected to make under a contract made with the assumed. agent by procuring a purchaser of land.”
Describes the nature of the plaintiff's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA real estate agent brought an action to recover expected commissions. The agent had procured a purchaser under a contract made with an assumed agent …
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 Breach Of Warranty Of Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
On Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
A petition for rehearing has been filed herein upon the theory that the court-overlooked the contention of counsel as to the proper measure of damages applicable to this case.
The opinion clearly shows that this action is brought by a real estate agent one who assumed without authority to act. as agent for the owner of land, to recover the commissions the real estate agent expected to make under a contract made with the assumed. agent by procuring a purchaser of land. The assumed agent was not personal ly bound on the contract; and the action was grounded on a breach of warranty of authority to make the contract which was made with an agent to sell for a commission, and not with an intended purchaser of the land. Under these circumstances authorities as to the measure of damages where an intended purchaser is the plaintiff or when the defendant is personally liable on the unauthorized contract are not relevant.
Rehearing denied.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.