Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 2006No. 2004AP2322Published

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

  1. Jackson v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
  2. American Creameries Co. v. Armour & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Mansfield v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Boutelle v. ChrislawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. E. M. Boerke, Inc. v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

7 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