VIVIAN RESEARCH SYSTEMS CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JOHN C. VIVIAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
W. P. MOOTY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1966-10-05
No. 66-2
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
190 So. 2d 441 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1966)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant in a real estate broker's commission case. The court found no error in the trial court's determination that the plaintiffs failed to prove an exclusive listing or that they presented a buyer ready, able, and willing to purchase on the owner's terms.


Holding

No, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate error in the directed verdict. There was no showing of an exclusive listing, nor was there evidence that the buyer and seller reached an agreement on the terms of the sale.


Key Quotes

“The verdict was properly directed for the defendants on the issue of an exclusive listing upon the law as set forth in South Florida Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247 (1922).”

Establishes the court's agreement with the directed verdict on the exclusive listing issue.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs, real estate brokers, sued for a commission, alleging an oral exclusive listing on a property that was sold to a buyer they did not present…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal a final judgment, which was based upon a directed verdict, in their action to recover a real estate broker’s commission. The theory of plaintiffs’ case in the trial court was that they had an oral exclusive listing on property which was sold to a purchaser they had not presented. The verdict was properly directed for the defendants on the issue of an exclusive listing upon the law as set forth in South Florida Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247 (1922).

The main thrust of. this appeal is upon the theory that plaintiffs presented a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase upon the terms set by the owner. Our review of the record in the light of this contention convinces us that error has not been demonstrated because there was no showing that the buyer and seller had reached an agreement upon the terms of the proposed sale. See McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 781; Melvin v. West, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 156; Singer v. M. Grant, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 52. 7 A.L.R.3d 688.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw