In this case, the court of appeals held that Crye-Leike was not entitled to a commission because of the plain language of its listing agreement. Specifically, the purchaser was not "shown or submitted" to the purchasers prior to August 21 (the date the listing agreement expired). Interestingly, the purchaser saw the property the day after the listing agreement expired.
The facts are simple. Out of town buyers contacted a real estate agent in Memphis to schedule viewings of homes for sale. The buyers apparently surfed the internet and found the house on an "unidentified website." The agent scheduled a viewing for August 22 through Crye-Leike's offices. The listing agreement, however, expired the day before.
The buyers, being crafty, then fired their real estate agent and contacted the homeowner directly. In the interim, the homeowner (who had no knowledge that the buyers had even visited the property) refused to extend Crye-Leike's listing agreement and insisted that Crye-Leike remove its sign. [The real estate agent testified that the owner "orally" agreed to extend the listing agreement, but that extension was not put into writing.) In any event, the buyers and the homeowner entered into a contract for the property.
On appeal, the court of appeals held that the homeowner did not owe anything to Crye-Leike because:
a. The listing agreement required all amendments to be in writing.
b. The terms "shown or submitted" did not include "internet" advertisements to the general public prior to the expiration of the agreement. Instead, those words required that the real estate agent provide "access" to the Property or "an opportunity to view the Property."
The Moral of this Story:
Change your contract today to make specify that internet advertising is clearly included.
See Crye-Leike, Inc. v. Sarah A. Carver.
No comments:
Post a Comment