Steve Schmidt & Co. v. Berry
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
183 Cal. App. 3d 1299 (1986)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
David Berry (defendant) hired real estate broker Charles Tingey (defendant) to find a buyer for a property. The listing agreement provided that Berry would accept an offer produced by Tingey from a ready, willing, and able buyer to purchase the building, and that commission would be paid in full at the close of escrow. The agreement further authorized Tingey to cooperate with other brokers with whom commission would be shared. Tingey entered into an agreement with Steve Schmidt & Co. (plaintiff), whereby Schmidt would assist in finding a buyer, and if successful, would split the commission with Tingey. Acting personally, Steve Schmidt thereafter offered to buy the building, producing evidence that he was experienced in the purchase of large properties and was able to complete the purchase. Berry rejected the offer and presented a counteroffer with additional terms that had not been included in the listing agreement. Schmidt rejected the counteroffer and reiterated the initial offer. Berry refused to sell unless his additional terms were included in the sales contract. Steve Schmidt & Co. brought suit seeking its share of the commission under the listing agreement. The court granted summary judgment in Schmidt’s favor. Berry appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, 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.