A. T. STRANO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CARR & CARR, INC., 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.
A real estate broker sued to recover commissions allegedly owed by a corporation. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the broker failed to establish entitlement to compensation under either the special counts or common counts because he did not produce a ready, willing, and able buyer or obtain a binding purchase contract, nor did he prove the defendant accepted, benefited from, or agreed to pay for the services rendered.
The court held that the broker failed to establish compensation entitlement. Under the contract counts, he neither produced a customer who was able, ready, and willing to buy on the owner's prescribed terms nor obtained a binding purchase contract. Under the common count for services, he failed to prove the defendant accepted the services, was benefited thereby, or had agreed to pay for them.
“A broker employed to find a purchaser to be entitled to compensation must either produce to the owner a customer who is able, ready and willing to buy on the terms prescribed by the owner, or else take from the customer a binding contract of purchase within such prescribed terms.”
Establishes the foundational rule for broker compensation in real estate transactions that applies to this case.
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 broker brought suit against Carr & Carr, Inc. to recover commissions. The declaration contained eight counts: two special counts based o…
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 Broker'S Commission Entitlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case a real estate broker brought suit to recover the amount of commissions alleged to be due him from the defendant. The declaration upon which trial was had contained eight counts. The first two counts were special counts on the contract. The remaining counts were the common counts. There was a judgment for the plaintiff to which writ of error was taken. The evidence fails to support the verdict under either count of the declaration. This Court, in Wiggins, Administrator, v. Wilson et al., 55 Fla. 346, 45 So. R. 1011, enunciated the rule applicable to suits based on contract like that involved here in the following language: A broker employed to find a purchaser to be entitled to compensation must either produce to the owner a customer who is able, ready and willing to buy on the terms prescribed by the owner, or else take from the customer a binding contract of purchase within such prescribed terms.
This rule has been adhered to 'in this jurisdiction up to the present time and is conceded to be the correct rule by a majority of the courts of final jurisdiction.
The only one of the common counts under which the plaintiff might have hoped to maintain his action was count 4, which was in the following language:
And in a like sum for work and labor and the services of the plaintiff by it done and bestowed in and about the business of the defendant at his request on the 5th day of August, 1925.
It appears to be settled beyond all question of controversy that to maintain an action under this count it must be shown that he who is to be charged either accepted the service rendered or was benefited thereby, or had agreed to pay the plaintiff for such service as was rendered.
The evidence fails to show that the parties sought to be charged, the defendant in this ease, accepted the labor and services alleged to have been rendered or that he profited or was benefited thereby, or that he had agreed to pay the plaintiff for such labor and service as was proven to have been rendered.
To have met the necessity of proving that the defendant had agreed to pay for the services alleged to have been rendered, it would have been necessary for the plaintiff to have made proof of the facts required under the rule as enunciated in Wiggins, Administrator, v. Wilson et al., supra. It appearing that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict under either count of the declaration, the judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Judson v. Mobley, 62 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1953)…ns and he did not produce a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy. See Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 So. 1011; Varn v. Pelot, 55 Fla. 357, 45 So. 1015; Malever v. Livingston, 95 Fla. 272, 116 So. 15; Strano v. Carr & Carr, Inc., 97 Fla. 150, 119 So. 864; Hart v. Pierce, 98 Fla. 1087, 125 So. 243; Waters Realty Company v. Miami Tripure Water Co., 100 Fla. 221, 129 So. 763; 8 Am.Jur. page 1069. The trial Judge was correct in the first place when he said that he was going to direct a verdict for the…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. P.L. Dodge Founds., Inc., 509 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…-28 (Feb. 12, 1975). However, the knowing and voluntary acceptance of the benefits of any service creates an implied promise on the part of the recipient to pay for them. Yeats v. Moody, 128 Fla. 658, 175 So. 719 (1937); Strano v. Carr & Carr, Inc., 97 Fla. 150, 119 So. 864 (1929); Taylor v. Thompson, 359 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Tobin & Tobin Insurance Agency v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). A prisoner-recipient is not…
-
Zide v. Arthur, 153 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…se or in the alternative he must present to the seller a customer who is actually ready, able- and willing to buy on the terms prescribed by the owner in the listing contract.” [Italics supplied.] In the earlier case of Strano v. Carr & Carr, Inc., 97 Fla. 150, 119 So. 864, it was said: “ ‘A broker employed to find a purchaser to be entitled to compensation must either produce to the owner a customer who is able, ready and willing to buy on the terms prescribed by the owner, or else take from the custome…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wiggins v. Solon G. Wilson and Clarence A. Boswell, 55 Fla. 346 (Fla. 1908)