Platt

Platt v. Butcher

Good Law
112 Cal. 634·1896 Cal. LEXIS 724·44 P. 1060
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 19, 1896No. 18324California639 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This is an action by a real estate broker to recover commissions upon a sale of real estate. Judgment went against defendant, and he appeals. The contract of employment was in writing, and, by its terms, was to remain in full force and effect until September 1, 1885. A short time prior to that date, by paroi agreement, the time for performance was extended, and, during such extension of time, the broker found a purchaser for the land, and a sale was made. The merits of the present litigation are dependent solely upon the validity of the paroi agreement extending the time for performance.

By section 1624 of the Civil Code certain contracts are declared invalid “unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or his agent .... 6. An agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or commission”; and this provision of law is invoked to defeat plaintiff’s claims. But section 1698 of the same code declares that a contract in writing may be altered by a, contract in writing, or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise, and plaintiff insists that the parol extension…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.