Birdsall v. Saucier
Connecticut Superior Court
1992 WL 37731 (1992)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Fernando Saucier (defendant) hired Virginia and Roy Birdsall (plaintiffs) as his real estate broker in the sale of a building he owned. Saucier agreed to pay the plaintiffs 10% of the sale price upon closing, a commission that turned out to be $115,000. As closing neared, however, it became clear that Saucier would not be able to afford the entire 10% up front. Accordingly, the parties agreed that Saucier would pay the Birdsalls $29,500 up front and the remainder in installment payments with interest over the next five years. When paid in full, the Birdsalls would actually receive $10,000 more than under the original agreement. Specifically, the buyers of Saucier’s building executed a promissory note to Saucier at closing, and Saucier and the Birdsalls agreed that Saucier would assign the promissory note to the Birdsalls. The Birdsalls’ outstanding commission debt effectively would be paid by the buyers of Saucier’s building. Payments were made to the Birdsalls under the promissory note for three years, at which time Saucier’s buyers stopped payments. The Birdsalls brought suit against Saucier for recovery of the unpaid commission balance.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blue, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
