ContractsProf Blog

Editor: D. A. Jeremy Telman
Valparaiso Univ. Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Can't Get No Satisfaction

130pxnew_york_state_seal A previous post summarized Srour v. Dwelling Quest Corp., a New York case concerning when a real estate broker’s job is fully performed, entitling her to a fee.  There, the parties’ contract defined the broker’s job as “assisting in the location and renting of a suitable apartment.” 

The New York Court of Appeals decided the case yesterday, unanimously reversing the appellate decision in a summary memorandum.  The lesson: you have to satisfy the conditions of your agreement to earn a brokerage fee.  The court held:

Here, the rental agreement obligated the defendant-broker to assist plaintiff in renting a "suitable apartment" and provided that the broker's commission was to be paid "at the time of lease signing"; however, the apartment had become uninhabitable by the time the landlord signed the lease.  Accordingly, the defendant-broker did not satisfy the brokerage agreement's condition, and is not entitled to any commission.

[Meredith R. Miller]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2005/11/cant_get_no_sat.html

Recent Cases | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d83557d12f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can't Get No Satisfaction: