Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentAnn Walsh Bradley, J.
¶ 57. (dissenting). Absent an express provision in the listing contract, it is unclear whether a broker is entitled to a commission when there is a transfer of property by condemnation. Applying a long-standing rule of construction, I conclude that any ambiguity here should be construed against Kohel. In my view, the listing contract in this case should not be interpreted to provide that Kohel receive a commission. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 58. The WB-5 form listing contract used in this case includes the following provisions:
COMMISSION: Seller shall pay Broker's commission, which…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Jackson v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- American Creameries Co. v. Armour & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1928
- Mansfield v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- Boutelle v. ChrislawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- E. M. Boerke, Inc. v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.