Add to footnote 1:
Chenkin v. Lipman, 138 App. Div. 267; 122 N. Y. Suppl. 1083 (1910).
Add to footnote 4'
Backer v. Ratkowsky, 137 App. Div. 564; 122 N. Y. Suppl. 225 (1910). See also Sec. 167.
A broker who produces a written contract of a proposed purchaser is not entitled to commissions if such proposed contract, although embodying all the terms of the vendor, also contains a clause that if the buyer fails or refuses to perform his part of the contract of purchase, the deposit of $100 shall be forfeited as liquidated damages, and the vendor refuses to accept such contract. The proposed written contract, being in such case the only offer of the purchaser, does not meet the vendor's terms, inasmuch as it imposes a new term, i. e., the forfeit of $100 as liquidated damages.1
Add to footnote 80 (p. 172) before "But see":
Anderson v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 54 (1914).
1 Cavanaugh v. Conway, 36 R. I. 571; 90 Atl. 1080 (1914).