TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES V. CAREY, 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.
The court affirmed the trial judge's finding that a real estate broker performed his obligations under an oral agreement to earn a commission, but remanded to correct the award amount from $32,000 (quantum meruit) to the agreed $15,000.
A real estate broker who fully performed under an oral agreement for a $15,000 commission is entitled to that agreed amount, not a quantum meruit recovery of 10% of the sales price.
[1] When parties establish an oral agreement for a fixed fee and the obligor fully performs, quantum meruit recovery is improper and the agreed fee controls.
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 intelligenceTransport Refrigeration and James Carey disputed a real estate commission. The parties had an oral agreement under which Carey was to receive $15,000 …
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 Contract Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this dispute over a real estate commission, competent substantial evidence in the record supports the trial judge’s findings upon which he based his conclusions that an agreement existed, and that the appellee fully performed his obligations under the agreement and is therefore entitled to a brokerage commission. However, the record evidence does not support his finding that no formal agreement existed regarding the amount of the fee to be paid. The complaint alleged, and both parties testified at trial, that the appellee was to receive a $15,000 commission for his services. The dispute below centered on whether there were special conditions attached to the oral agreement which the appellee failed to fulfill.
The appellee sought, and the trial judge awarded, a commission in the amount of $32,0000 (10% of the sales price) based on the theory of quantum meruit. However, the facts in this record do not indicate that application of this theory was proper. Both the pleadings and the proof in this case establish the appellee’s entitlement to a fee of $15,000 if he performed according to the oral agreement. The trial judge, having found such performance, should have awarded a fee of $15,000.
The judgment is REMANDED for correction of the amount of the award to read “$15,000.00” instead of “$32,000.00” and is otherwise AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fussell v. Fussell, 778 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…h a written agreement, and the trial court placed no limits on the child calling the father. We hold that the trial court did not modify, but rather interpreted and clarified the final judgment’s telephonic visitation provision. See Brown v. Brown, 604 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(affirming a trial court order by concluding the order was a clarification of the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights rather than a modification). The final judgment stated, “[wjhen the child is with one parent, the other par…