![]() |
![]() |
Free Books / Real Estate / American Law Of Real Estate Agency / | ![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
|
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Sec. 1020. Instruction Where Contract Was For Sale To Certain Party, Which Failed, Plaintiff Could Not Recover |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
This section is from the book "American Law Of Real Estate Agency", by William Slee Walker. Also available from Amazon: American law of real estate agency.
There being evidence that defendant only contracted with plaintiff with reference to a sale to a certain party, which sale fell through, defendant was entitled to a charge that plaintiff could not recover if the contract was so limited. Wefel v. Stillman, 151 Ala. 249, 44 S. 203.
Sec. 1021 Instruction erroneous, which relied on usage, in not requiring the jury to find the existence thereof.
In an action by a real estate broker for commissions for selling a leasehold, plaintiff's prayer for an instruction which relied on usage and custom to fix the amount to which he was entitled, was erroneous in not requiring the jury to find the existence of a uniform and notorious custom regulating the compensation of agents making sales of leaseholds. Groscup v. Downey, 105 Md. 273, 65 A. 930.
 
Continue to:
agent, real estate agency, brokerage, commissions, compensation, contracts, duties, exchanges, exclusive contracts, forms, interpretations, judicial constructions, leases, liabilities of principal, listing, loans, options, contracts, pleadings, practice, law, rights, sales
![]() |
|
|