Legal Opinion

Westside Estate Agency, Inc. v. Randall

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 1, 2016No. B268455PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOFFSTADT, J.

We are all familiar with the phrase, “caveat emptor”: Buyer beware. This case deals with its less renowned cousin, “caveat sectorem”: Broker beware. California’s statute of frauds declares invalid any “agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate” unless that agreement is in writing and signed by the broker’s client. (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)(4).) This is a nearly absolute rule, with only a few very narrow exceptions. The broker in this case missed out on a $925,000 commission because he agreed to help a…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Schifando v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Lee v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  3. City of Dinuba v. County of TulareCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Loeffler v. Target CorporationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP v. LahijiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
  2. Cisneros v. Centene CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
  3. Dicker v. Curry CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2020
  4. Fischer v. Fischer-OlsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2026
  5. Siskiyou Hospital v. County of SiskiyouCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API