(1) Where pending negotiations by brokers with a prospective customer, the owners took the negotiations into their own hands, and were able only to procure an option contract, they were estopped to deny liability for commissions, on the ground that the customer produced by the brokers was willing only to enter into an option contract. Duncan v. Parker, 142 P. 657, 81 Wash. 340, L. E. A. 1915 A, 804.

(2) Where defendant employed plaintiff to sell certain real property on a commission of l 1/4% on the selling price, when the title is passed, and the title never passed to the purchaser procured by plaintiff because it was defective, the phrase, "when the title is passed," was not to be construed as a condition to plaintiff's right to commission, but rather as fixing the time when the contract should be performed, and on the failure of the title to pass for that reason, defendant was estopped to claim that plaintiff had failed to earn his commission. Meckes v. Mullen, 132 N. Y. . Sup. 942, 75 Misc. Rep. 303.

(3) Where defendant employed plaintiff brokers to secure a loan, and later plaintiffs' employee, in an indefinite conversation with another loan broker, by a mutual mistake as to the loan involved, stated that it would not be made, plaintiff was not estopped to deny release of defendant from its obligation and contract for commissions. Colvin Phillips & Co. v. Newoc Co., 172 P. 355, - Wash. Sup. - .