Drake v. Hosley
Alaska Supreme Court
713 P.2d 1203 (1986)
Paul Drake (defendant) owned property in North Pole, Alaska. He entered into an exclusive listing agreement with the Charles Hosley Company, Realtors (Hosely) (plaintiff), granting Hosley the authority to sell Drake’s land. Under the terms of the agreement, Hosley was entitled to a ten percent commission if: (1) Hosley found a buyer willing and able to purchase the land pursuant to terms set by Drake, or (2) Drake entered a binding sale during the term set by Drake. Hosley found a group of buyers and entered a purchase and sale agreement on March 23, 1984. The buyers and Drake signed the agreement, which required closing within ten days of clear title. Drake and Hosley also signed an addendum to the agreement, under which Drake agreed to pay Hosley a commission of ten percent of the purchase price. On April 2 or 3, Hosley received a preliminary commitment and report from a title insurance company. The report noted that a judgment awarded to Drake’s ex-wife was the only encumbrance on the title. Drake’s attorney, Tom Wickwire, explained that the judgment would be paid with proceeds from the sale. A few days later, Wickwire contacted Hosley and stated that Drake desired to close the sale by April 11. Wickwire had negotiated a reduced settlement with Drake’s ex-wife that required payment by that date. Wickwire claimed at trial that Hosley agreed to close on April 11, but Hosley states that he only agreed to close as soon as possible. On April 11, Wickwire contacted Hosley again. Hosley stated that the buyers could not close that day and that they would not have the down payment before May 1. Wickwire suggested that Drake stop the sale and, in a letter dated April 11, withdrew Drake’s offer to sell. On April 12, Drake sold the land to other buyers. That same day, Hosley submitted checks from his buyers for a down payment. Wickwire refused to accept the checks, explaining that Drake had already sold the land. Hosley brought suit, arguing that he had satisfied the terms of the exclusive listing agreement and that he was entitled to payment of a ten percent commission. The trial court granted summary judgment in Hosley’s favor.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 709,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.