Korstad

Korstad v. Hoffman

Good Law
221 Cal. App. 2d 805
Appellate Division, Superior Court of CaliforniaOctober 24, 1963Civ. A. No. 277115California1,357 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The defendant appeals from a judgment awarding to the plaintiffs, real estate brokers, a commission of $1,800 in connection with the sale of a vacant lot owned by defendant, The facts as established by the findings of the trial court are as follows:

The trial court found in substance that on February 21, 1962, Arthur M. Ariessohn, a salesman employed by Siegel Realty, Inc., a corporation, “introduced said real property to Joseph D. Feldman and Naomi Feldman.” It was further found that on April 24, 1962, the defendant sold the property to Mr. and Mrs. Feldman for $18,000. The court thereupon awarded plaintiffs the sum of $1,800 as commission.

The defendant and appellant presents two questions: first, that the facts established by the evidence and as found by the court do not support the judgment; and, second, that the plaintiffs breached their agreement by failing to advertise the property as required by the listing agreement. It appears that the first proposition is determinative of the case.

It is to be noted that the listing agreement is in form an exclusive right to sell, by the terms of which during the exclusive period the owners are obligated to pay a commission in case…

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.