HARRY H. WILLOCK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
T. R. PARKER, 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.
In this real estate broker commission dispute, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $7,500 judgment in favor of T. R. Parker, who claimed he had procured a ready, able, and willing purchaser for Willock's property. The court rejected Willock's arguments that the evidence was insufficient and that Parker had breached his duty of good faith.
The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding that the evidence sufficiently showed Parker had secured a purchaser willing to purchase on agreed terms. The court determined that no reversible error was committed in the admission or rejection of testimony or in the trial court's jury instructions.
“a purchaser was in fact secured who signified his willingness to purchase on terms agreed on by him and the defendant, Willock”
Establishes the court's finding that Parker satisfied the essential requirement of procuring a ready, able, and willing purchaser.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT. R. Parker, a real estate broker, claimed he had secured a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy Willock's real estate on agreed-upon terms. Par…
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.
Per Curiam.
Defendant in error, T. R. Parker, brought an action against plaintiff in error, Harry H. Willock, to recover commissions for procuring a purchaser ready, able, and willing to purchase certain real estate, the property of the said Harry H. Willock. Parker was awarded a verdict and judgment in the sum of $7,500.00 from which writ of error was taken to this Court.
It is contended here that the evidence does not support the pleadings; that the evidence - does not support the verdict; that evidence was improperly admitted and charges improperly given that Willock had a right to discharge Parker and that Parker did not maintain good faith toward Willock throughout their dealings.
It is unnecessary in this opinion to restate the law governing brokers and the relation between a contract to sell and a contract to find a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase on terms stated. We have examined the record carefully and we think the declaration sufficiently shows a contract to secure a purchaser and that a purchaser was in fact secured who signified his willingness to purchase on terms agreed on by him and the defendant, Willock. It is true that the evidence on these matters was conflicting but the jury whose province it was found against appellant and we are not convinced that their finding should be reversed. We fail to find that harmful error was committed either in the admission or rejection of testimony or in the charges given ,by the trial court.
Yery illuminating briefs have been submitted in support of appellant’s contention, but we fail to find that reversible error was committed so the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.