J. A. CANTOR & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT DEVORE D/B/A DEVORE REALTY ASSOCIATION, 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.
Two competing real estate broker firms disputed whether an oral agreement to divide commissions on a property sale was validly made between their respective employees. The court affirmed the jury verdict finding that an enforceable oral agreement existed and that the employee had apparent authority to bind his employer to such an agreement.
The court affirmed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; that brokers may divide commissions pursuant to oral agreements; that it is a question of fact for the jury to determine an agent's apparent authority; and that it was proper for the trial judge to charge the jury on the custom of the trade in a brokerage commission suit.
[1] Brokers may divide commissions, and such agreements can be oral.
[2] The apparent authority of an agent to bind their principal is a question of fact for the jury.
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“It has long been established in the law of this State that brokers may divide commissions.”
Establishes the foundational rule that commission-sharing agreements between brokers are valid in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1971, David Kaplan (an employee of appellee DeVore Realty) and Gerald Gour (an employee of appellant Cantor & Associates) made an oral agre…
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 Oral Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties herein are both real estate broker firms. In January of 1971, one David Kaplan [an employee of the appellees] and one Gerald Gour [an employee of the appellant] entered into an oral contract for division of commission earned, in the event of the sale of a certain piece of property in Dade County. This was a course of practice established between the firm by whom Gour was employed and the appellee’s office. Pursuant thereto, Kaplan told Gour of a client, who ultimately purchased the property listed with the Cantor agency. When the appellant refused to divide the commission, the appellee brought the instant suit alleging breach of the oral agreement. The appellant defended, alleging it never agreed to divide commissions with the appellee. Issue was joined and the cause proceeded to a jury trial, resulting in the final judgment appealed herein awarding the plaintiff one-half of the commission received by the defendant. Of course, certain of these ultimate facts were in dispute, but the jury having returned a verdict in favor of the plaintff all the conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom are resolved in favor of the verdict upon these proceedings. Booker v. Lima, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 642; Clark v. Wilder, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 642; Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Morgan, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 632.
This appeal ensued. The appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove authority by the salesman for Cantor to agree to divide the commission; that the trial judge erred in charging the jury on custom of the trade; and that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant. We affirm.
It has long been established in the law of this State that brokers may divide commissions. Giles v. Wilmott, 59 Fla. 271, 52 So. 287; Carlile v. Spofford, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 318; Alter v. Adams, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 490; 5 Fla.Jur., Brokers, § 39. It has also been established that such an agreement may be an oral one. Bush v. Mattingly, 62 Ariz. 483, 158 P.2d 665; Thompson v. Carey’s Real Estate, 335 Mich. 474, 56 N.W.2d 255; Reasoner v. Yates, 90 Neb. 757, 134 N.W. 651; Sorenson v. Brice Realty Company, 204 Or. 223, 282 P.2d 1057; Niemann v. Severson, 246 Wis. 636, 18 N.W.2d 338; 12 Am.Jur.2d, Brokers, § 176; Anno. 44 A.L. R.2d 741. It has also been established that it is a question of fact, under appropriate instructions, for a jury to determine the apparent authority of an agent to bind his principal. Bush Grocery Company v. Conely, 61 Fla. 131, 53 So. 329; Parsons v. *247Federal Realty Corporation, 105 Fla. 105, 143 So. 912; Willis v. Clark, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 260. And, it was appropriate for the trial judge in this brokerage commission suit to charge the jury on the custom of the trade. Compare: Blackburn v. Alachua County Broadcasting Company, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 303; National Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E. Dooly Associates, Inc. Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 53; Miller v. Watson, Ct.Civ.App., Tex.1953, 257 S.W.2d 839.
The jury resolved the controverted facts in this case adverse to the appellant. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, as we are required to do [Booker v. Lima, supra; Clark v. Wilder, supra; Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Morgan, supra], we find no error on the part of the trial judge which would justify a reversal in this cause.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taco Bell OF California v. Zappone, 324 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…ns v. Sims, 1921, 81 Fla. 730, 88 So. 764, and is one which should be submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions. Parsons v. Federal Realty Corp., 1931, 105 Fla. 105, 143 So. 912; J. A. Cantor & Associates, Inc. v. Devore, Fla.App.3d 1973, 281 So. 2d 245. There was no evidence that Rad-ford had actual authority to make the representations in question. Taco Bell’s chairman of the board and its vice president both testified that they were never informed of the representations attributed to Radford by…
-
Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Valdes, 348 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…enry, 108 So. 2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1959). A reviewing court must resolve all conflicts in the evidence and inferences therefrom in favor of the jury verdict. See Motes v. Crosby, 65 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1953); and J. A. Cantor & Associates, Inc., v. Devore, 281 So. 2d 245 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Further, a jury is the sole judge of the facts where the evidence is conflicting. See Watson v. Gallagher, 96 So. 2d 472 (Fla.3d DCA 1957); and Crews v. Warren, 157 So. 2d 553 (Fla.lst DCA 1963). We conclude, therefore, that the e…
-
Tillie W. LEE v. Dade Cnty., 342 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ll inferences fairly deducible therefrom, in the light most favorable to appellee, we must affirm the judgment based on the jury’s verdict. Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, 147 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); J. A. Cantor & Associates, Inc. v. Devore, 281 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). In addition, there being contradictory evidence presented on the negligence issue, it was not error to refuse to direct a verdict for appellant on the issue of liability. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Linder,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parsons v. Fed. Realty Corp., 105 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1931)
- Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assocs., Inc., 160 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- T. G. Bush Grocery Co. v. Conely, 61 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1911)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 213 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Booker v. Udelio Lima and Mary Lima, 182 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Ponte v. Lattin, 135 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Blackburn v. Alachua Cnty. Broad. Co., 126 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Giles v. Wilmott, 59 Fla. 271 (Fla. 1910)
- Alter v. Adams, 185 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Carlile v. Spofford, 69 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1954)