This section is from the book "The Law Of Land Contracts", by Asher L. Cornelius. Also available from Amazon: Michigan Law Of Land Contracts.
By amendment to the Statute of Frauds, it is provided that every agreement, contract or promise to pay any commission for or upon the sale of any interest in real estate, shall be void, unless such agreement, contract or promise or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith.8
To satisfy the Statute of Frauds the promise to pay must be in writing and must state the parties to the agreement, nature of the services to be performed, the property to be sold, the commission to be paid,9 but it is not necessary that the selling price or terms of sale be included, and need not contain all the details necessary to be stated in an agreement to sell and convey real estate, and it is sufficient if the writing be a promise to pay a commission for or upon a sale of real estate.10
Where the writing has a statement that the commission is to be paid "at the time of settlement of sale," the client can not take advantage of the statement to evade his liability for the commission, where the consumation of the sale is prevented by his refusal to perform.11
Where a broker presented an agreement to the owner of a house, whereby he was to have exclusive listing for two months, and an extension until such time as he received ten days' written notice of cancellation, or if sold within three months by the broker, and the testimony showed that the owner, a woman, signed the agreement after telling the broker to erase the clauses concerning the ten days' notice and the sale within three months, and to change exclusive listing from two months to one, she being almost blind, signing the paper without her glasses, it was held that the broker could not recover, as the agreement, without the erasures did not truly represent the agreement between the broker and the owner.12
7. Public Acts, Mich. 1921, No. 3S7, Sec. 14.
8. Public Acts, Mich. 1913, No. 238; 3 Compiled Laws, 1915, Sec. 11981.
9. Greenberg v. Sakwinski, 211 Mich. 505.
10. Cochran v. Staman, 201 Mich. 639.
11. Greenberg v. Sakwinski, 211, Mich. 505.
Where a broker contracts that he shall be entitled to a commission "in case he effects a sale," it was held that his right to commission accrues when a contract to buy and sell is signed, although a formal deed has not been executed.13
The phase, "every agreement, promise, or contract to pay any commission for or upon the sale of any interest in real estate," used in the Statute of Frauds, has been construed to apply to a purchase as well as to a sale, the argument that an agreement to purchase real estate is not one to sell real estate, being a too narrow construction of the statute.14
The fact that the promise to pay a commission was not in writing will bar the broker from suing upon the quantum meruit for services actually performed, and upon proof of their value.15
A real estate broker approached a farmer and orally agreed to pay him a certain amount if he furnished a customer for certain premises. The compensation to be paid the farmer was held to constitute "commission" and within the law of 1913 requiring same to be in writing, and the court also held that the statute requiring the agreement to be in writing applied to other persons as well as those between owner and broker.16
The agency of a broker whose employment is definitely limited by his contract, terminates with the expiration of the time specified,17 and where no time is specified, the contract continues for only a reasonable time,18 but ordinarily the broker is entitled to notice of the revocation of his authority.19
An option given to a broker to sell a certain farm, providing that same could be terminated by thirty days' written notice, the giving of such notice terminated the contract, and the broker was not entitled to any commission; the rule that the owner cannot, with knowledge that the broker is negotiating a sale, cancel the contract and avoid payment of the commission, is not applicable.20
12. White v. Hoenighousen, 211 Mich. 471.
13. Cain v. Masurette, 196 Mich. 7.
14. Slocum v. Smith, 195 Mich. 281.
15. Slocum v. Smith, 195 Mich. 281; Paul v. Graham, 193 Mich. 447.
16. Smith v. Starke, 196 Mich. 811.
17. Beadle v. Sage Land Co., 140 Mich. 199; West v. Demme, 128 Mich. 11.
18. Friedenwald v. Welch, 174 Mich. 399.
19. Nolan v. Swift, 111 Mich. 56.
The broker is ordinarily strictly confined to his instructions, but he has, however, implied authority to do any act or to make any declaration in regard to the property which is necessary to effectuate a purchase or sale.21
The ordinary authority of the broker is merely to find a purchaser who is ready, able, and willing to enter into a contract on the terms specified by, or acceptable to the principal, except where the broker is clearly given the authority to complete a sale binding upon the principal.22
 
Continue to: