Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

216 Mass. 352

Riley v. Hoffman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 9, 1914

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1914-01-09

<p>Agency, Broker’s commission. Contract, Performance and breach. License.</p> <p>A real estate and liquor license broker, who is employed by a liquor dealer to sell at a -price named the business carried on by him on certain premises of which he is the lessee, on the conditions that the customer can obtain a license to sell intoxicating liquors and that the landlord will consent to an assignment of the lease, does not earn a commission by procuring a purchaser willing to pay the required price, if the sale fails of completion because, without fault of either the seller or the buyer, no license for the buyer to sell intoxicating liquors can be obtained and the landlord will not consent to an assignment of the lease to the buyer.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 1941

2 federal appellate ·

Relies on Munroe v. Taylor · Goodnough v. Kinney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1914-01-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Braley, J.

¶1The defendant, a licensed liquor dealer, employed the plaintiffs to procure a purchaser for the business carried on by him on premises of which he was the lessee, and agreed if a sale were made at a certain price to pay them a fixed sum as a commission. If this had been the entire contract the plaintiffs, when they had found a customer able and willing to buy and pay the price and had notified the defendant, would have earned the commission. Goodnough v. Kinney, 205 Mass. 203, 204.

¶2But, while the judge found that a customer was procured, his further findings, which were warranted by the evidence, show, that independently of the license or of the lease the business as a going enterprise had no market value, and the plaintiffs understood that they were to effect a sale, upon the conditions that the customer could obtain a license from the licensing board, and that the defendant’s landlord would assent to an assignment ol the lease. If the lease and the license could have been obtained,, a binding sale would have been accomplished. It appears, however, that without the fault of the vendor or of the purchaser neither the license nor the lease was procurable, and, no sale having been consummated, the judge properly declined to rule that upon all the evidence as matter of law the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Munroe v. Taylor, 191 Mass. 483, 485.

¶3 Exceptions overruled.

/216/mass/352 · .json · Public domain