2) On May 1, Bobbi-Ann, a real estate agent, and Corporate Properties, Inc., a c

Question

2) On May 1, Bobbi-Ann, a real estate agent, and Corporate Properties, Inc., a commercial property owner, sign an agreement about the sale of Corporate Properties’ office building. Under the terms, if a buyer makes a serious offer within sixty days, Corporate Properties must pay Bobbi-Ann’s commission. Bobbi-Ann puts for sale signs on the building, places ads in real estate pamphlets and one a locally focused Web site, and features the property in a “walking” tour online. On June 1, Corporate Properties tells Bobbi-Ann that it is canceling their arrangement. Ten days later, Corporate Properties closes a sale on the building without Bobbi-Ann’s participation. Bobbi-Ann files a suit against Corporate Properties for the amount of her commission. In whose favor is the court likely to rule, and why?

Explanation / Answer

The court would decide the case in favour of Bobbi-Ann, Though the contract has been cancelled later, certain service has been rendered by advertising for the sale of the building by Bobbi-Ann when the agreement was in vogue. The agreement was in place for almost one month. An agreement is one, which is a mutally agreed upon by two or more parties. However, on June 1st, corporate properties unilaterally tells that it is cancelling their arrangment, which is not valid, as mutual consent is required to cancel the agreement. Hence, it is to be treated that the agreement is still in vogue and the Bobbi ann is entitiled to receive her commission, as the deal was closed with in the period mentioned in the agreement.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 2
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.