[DOWNLOAD] "Dyer-Bussey Realtors v. Robert C. Wright" by Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Dyer-Bussey Realtors v. Robert C. Wright
- Author : Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District
- Release Date : January 10, 1983
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
In this court tried case, the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $3,493 upon the basis of the defendants' breach of a written exclusive listing contract. The defendants contend the judgment was improper because the contract had been orally modified so that it was not breached by them. The evidence establishes the following. On March 1, 1980, the parties executed an exclusive listing contract. The contract was prepared by use of a form approved by counsel for the Missouri Association of Relators. This contract granted to the plaintiff-realtor the exclusive right to sell, as those terms are customarily used in the real estate industry, the described property for $49,900. The plaintiff thereafter advertised and showed the property to several prospective buyers. On April 17, 1980, the defendant-husband, speaking for himself and his wife, called the office of the plaintiff and spoke to Bussey. The plaintiff is a corporation owned by Dyer, its president, and Bussey, its vice president. It was undisputed that either Dyer or Bussey had authority to enter into and modify listing contracts on behalf of the plaintiff. The details of that telephone Discussion need not be noted at this point. For the resolution of the first point involved, it will be assumed it was agreed by the husband and Bussey the listed price would be changed from $49,900 to $52,000. On April 19, 1980, another broker, apparently operating under a multi-list arrangement, showed the property to the Estels. The Estels signed a real estate contract providing for their purchase of the property for $49,900 upon terms within the provisions of the listing contract. When, by telephone, Bussey told the defendant-husband of this proposed contract, he rejected the same because of the price. The next contact or communication between the plaintiff and defendants was the service of the summons in this cause on May 14, 1980.