Fry v. George Elkins Co.
District Court of Appeal, Second District, California
327 P.2d 905 (1958)
Fry (plaintiff) entered negotiations to purchase the home of Miller (defendant) using the services of George Elkins Co. (Elkins) (defendant), a brokerage firm. On May 20, 1956, Fry made an offer to purchase the Miller home for $42,500. Fry provided a deposit of $4,250 to Elkins. Half of this amount ($2,125) was the brokerage fee due from Fry to Elkins. Under the brokerage agreement, Miller agreed to pay Elkins $2,125 in the event Fry forfeited the brokerage fee by not going through with the transaction. Under the terms of Fry’s offer to purchase Miller’s home, Fry’s purchase was conditioned on his ability to obtain a $20,000 loan at five percent interest for 20 years. Elkins advised Fry that there was a current five percent loan on Miller’s property with a balance of $16,650 that could most likely be refinanced to provide Fry with the required $20,000. This loan was held through Western Mortgage. Fry did not contact Western Mortgage. At the urging of Elkins, a representative of Western Mortgage repeatedly contacted Fry and stated that a $20,000 loan at five percent interest for 20 years would be available to him if he completed the application papers. Fry did not complete application papers. Instead, Fry contacted two other banks for loans. Both banks rejected Fry’s loan applications. Fry wrote Miller saying that he had changed his mind about purchasing the house and wanted to rescind the deal on the ground that he was unable to obtain the requisite financing. Miller agreed, and was able to sell the home to another party, Rothschild, for $40,375. Rothschild obtained a loan from Western Mortgage. As part of the new deal, Miller was required to include personal property worth $937.50 in the sale to Rothschild. Additionally, Miller had to spend $250 to hire an attorney to facilitate the sale. Finally, since Fry broke the sale agreement, Miller was required to pay Elkins the brokerage commission of $2,125. The total extra amount paid by Miller as a result of Fry’s breach was $3,312.50. Fry brought suit in federal district court against Elkins and Miller seeking to recover his $4,250 deposit. The trial court deducted the $3,312.50 paid by Miller from Fry’s deposit and awarded Fry $937.50. Fry appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fox, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.