Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pellaton v. Brunski

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 21, 1924No. Civ. No. 4807Published

1Dissent

ST. SURE, J.,

Dissenting.—I dissent for the reason that

the evidence wholly fails to show that the plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy upon the terms proposed by the seller. All three of these elements must exist in the customer, in order to entitle the broker to his commission, and it is not sufficient that the customer is ready and willing, but he must also have the ability to carry out the purchase; he is not required to have legal tender in hand with which to pay, unless the price is required to be paid in cash, in which ease the fact that he has property out of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mattingly v. PennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. McGavock v. WoodliefSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
  3. McCabe v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  4. McCune v. BadgerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Merzoian v. KludjianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API