"Where the vendor and a proposed purchaser disagree as to the terms of sale, and the broker, who is present, acquiesces in the inability of the parties to complete the contract, and the owner afterward places the property in the hands of another agent, who sells it on practically the same terms to the purchaser secured by the first agent, unless fraud or bad faith be shown, the first broker is not entitled to compensation. Girar-dieu v. Gibson, 122 Ga. 313, 50 S. E. 91.

Where a real estate broker made a contract for the sale of land which contained an agreement that possession should be given in ninety days, and this agreement was beyond his authority, but his principal conveyed the land to the vendees, they accepting an allowance on account of the delay beyond ninety days in giving possession. Held, that by making settlement with the principal, the vendees lost their right of action against the brokers because of the breach of an unauthorized agreement. Hopkins v. Everly, 150 Pa. St. 117, 24 A. 624, 30 Weekly N. Cases 393.

An owner employed a broker to procure a purchaser and agreed to pay him a commission on the purchaser paying more than a specified sum; a purchaser could not be induced to pay more than that sum; the owner, with the knowledge of the broker, made the sale at the highest price obtainable; there was no secret dealing between the owner and the purchaser, and the broker did not object to the sale. Held, that the broker was not entitled to a commission, on the theory that there was a waiver on the part of the owner of the stipulation as to price. Ball v. Dolwn (S. D. Sup. '08), 114 N. W. 998. See also Sec. 482.

Where M.", who was to receive a. commission for a sale of B.'s land, turned over the sale of the land to L., agreeing that L. should have the commissions therefor, to which B. consented before a sale was made, L., on selling the land, was not entitled to the commissions as the assignee of M., but because he, with the knowledge and consent of B., sold the land after M. had waived his right to do so. Munson v. Mabon, 135 Iowa, 335, 112 N. W. 775.

Where a written contract employing plaintiff as broker to sell defendant's land provided for a certain cash payment by any purchaser that might be secured and fixed the price at which defendant would sell, refusal by defendant to accept an offer to buy at that price was a waiver of any right which defendant might otherwise have had to require a prospective purchaser to make a tender m cash of the down payment. Mc-Dermott v. Mehonev (Iowa Sup.), 106 N. W. 925, 115 N. W. 32, 139 Iowa, 292; Moore v. Boehm, 91 N. Y. S. 125, 45 Misc. 622.

Where a broker is authorized to procure a purchaser of land within a certain time, but the owner waives the performance of the contract within the time agreed and accepts the services of the broker and treats the contract as in force, the broker will be entitled to compensation when he procures a purchaser. Ice v. Maxwell, 61 W. Va. 9, 55 S. E. 899.

K. employed land brokers to procure a purchaser for his land; a condition of the employment was that if he sold the land without the intervention or assistance of the brokers they would not be entitled to commissions; M. sold independently of the brokers, although before negotiations were completed the brokers furnished a purchaser. It was held that they had, by the contract, waived their rights, and were not entitled to a commission. Robinson v. Kindley, 36 Kan. 157, 12 Pac. 587.

Where a landlord accepted the waiver of a tenant's privilege of renewal, procured by his agent from the tenant, and acted upon the same, he was estopped to deny the agent's authority in the premises. Madison Ave. v. Osgood, 18 N. Y. S. 126.

Where a broker was told by the principal that he must look to the intending purchaser for his compensation, he can not recover his commissions from the principal. King v. Benson, 22 Mont. 256, 56 P. 280. Compare Sec. 19.

Under an agreement to pay a broker a commission for procuring a purchaser within a specified time, to earn the commission he must produce within that time a customer ready, able and willing to purchase on the stipulated terms; but the commission is earned if the customer is willing to purchase on different terms, and the variance is waived by the principal, or if a suitable customer is produced, but not within the time limited, owing to a delay caused by the principal, there being no implied promise to pay a commission if, at a time subsequent to the time limit, the property is sold to one introduced by the broker. Brown v. Mason (Cal. Sup. '09), 99 P. 867.

"Where a broker employed to procure a purchaser attempted, after the expiration of the time fixed for performance, to find a purchaser, and the owner, knowing thereof, made no objection, but encouraged him to proceed, and a purchaser was procured, the owner waived the time limit and the broker was entitled to his commissions. Stiewel v. Lolly, 89 Ark. 195, 115 S. W. 1134. See also Sec. 42.

Where a principal knows that his agent is representing both parties, it is not necessary to disclose such fact to the principal to entitle the broker to his commissions. Arthur v. Porter (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 116 S. W. 127.

Where a contract declared on and exhibited with the complaint, in an action by a broker for commissions, did not contain a time limit for performance, but referred to a power of attorney executed by the owner to the broker which contained a time limit, and the owner admitted the execution of the contract, but alleged that it was not in force at the time of the sale, the question whether the contract was in force at that time was in issue, and under it the broker might prove a waiver by the owner of the time limit in the power of attorney. Stiewel v. Lolly, 89 Ark. 195, 115 S. W. 1134.

A contract provided that certain land should be left with plaintiff for sale for two weeks, and until written notice of withdrawal. The broker failed to sell the land within the two weeks, and verbally acquiesced with the owner that his time to make a sale had expired, and stated that there was no use in destroying the contract, which defendant wanted to do, and neither party acted further thereunder. Held, that the broker had waived written notice of withdrawal, thereby terminating the contract at the expiration of the said two weeks. Bird v. Webber (Okla. Sup. '09), 101 P. 1052.

The right to recover for services in procuring purchasers for lands was not waived by the fact that after plaintiffs found that defendants did not own or control the land, they demanded a return of the money advanced by the purchasers. Peavey v. Greer (Minn. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 875.

Where a broker performed services towards leasing property, but before he had leased it, he told the owner that he would charge him nothing for his services, he was entitled to no compensation, either for subsequent or the prior services, whether the prior services were rendered without a contract therefor, or under the contract to effect the lease, in which latter case no commission would be earned till the lease was effected. Strickland v. Fairfax (Va. Sup. '09), 65 S. E. 477.

The commissions of a broker who acquiesced in the reduction of the price from the original terms is based on the actual price received. Bauersmith v. Ik, etc., Co., 146 Fed. 95.

A broker had attempted to exchange defendants' property, and had announced that he expected two and one-half per cent. commission. Less than a week afterward, the deal having fallen through, the broker wrote to defendants: "Now, I have a trade for you and am willing to give you all there is in it," and stated: "I will give you his place clear and $2,000 cash for your place clear. * * * I would want possession of your place this spring, and you could have possession of the other." The place referred to belonged to the broker's brother in another State, who wished to move to the residence of the broker, and the broker had no interest in the land, and nothing to give in the transaction other than his commissions. In a subsequent letter the broker said: "I am willing to give you all there is in it, as we would rather have our holdings here," and "should I get the place I would prefer it not rented until my brother comes and decides what he wants to do." Held, that the letters showed that the broker was not acting for defendants but was either acting for himself or for his brother and proposed to waive his commissions if the exchange were consummated. Big Four Realty Co. v. Clark (Mo. App. '09), 123 S. W. 95.

If owner was dissatisfied with purchasers procured by broker he should have notified broker, or have declined to enter into a contract with purchasers, but having accepted the purchasers after being misled by brokers, he is bound to pay broker a commission. U. S. Farm Loan Co. v. Darter, 183 P. 696, - Cal. App. - .

Where broker's agreement to sell land was completed when owner told him he would pay a less commission than that agreed on, and no more, and all that remained to be done was to put the agreement of sale with the purchaser procured in writing, the broker did not waive his right to the first agreed commission by merely remaining silent. Gardner v. Buschler, I11 A. 589, - Conn. Sup. - .

The owner's statement to the brokers that the latter had earned their commission, made while negotiations were still pending with the broker's customer, expressed no intention to relinquish their right to resist payment of the commission if the customer was not willing to take the property under the terms stated to the broker, and therefore did not waive that right. Brown & Fen-wick R. E. & Ah. Co. v. Marks, 226 S. W. 55, - Mo. App. -; Meachem v. Baker, 226 S. W. 967, - Mo. App. -; Weller v. Phillip Gross Realty Co., 180 N. W. 927, - Wis. Sup. - .