No. 3853.District of Columbia Court of Appeals.Argued April 11, 1966.
Decided July 25, 1966.
APPEAL FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, JOHN J. MOLLOY, J.
Ivan J. Shefferman, Washington, D.C., with whom Hyman Shapiro, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Erwin A. Alpern, Washington, D.C., with whom Karl G. Feissner, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal stems from a judgment upon a directed verdict at the conclusion of all testimony denying appellant a commission for the sale of certain realty. The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that the offer submitted by appellant contained material variations from the terms authorized by the seller. Although the court did not specify all the variations it considered material, a review of the listing agreement, the offer, and the testimony of the parties convinces us that there is support for the trial court’s conclusion that a substantial deviation existed between the terms of the listing agreement and those in the offer[1] and that the broker, having failed to produce a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy in accordance with the terms authorized by the seller, is not entitled to a commission.[2]
Affirmed.
Page 917
HYUN JIN MOON, et al., Appellants, V. THE FAMILY FEDERATION FOR WORLD PEACE AND UNIFICATION…
John R. GAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 4359.District of Columbia Court of Appeals.…
CUNNINGHAM ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. Richard W. DUGAN and Ernst Young, Appellees. No. 94-CV-500.District of Columbia…
ABBOTT v. FANT. No. 199.Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. July 19,…
Janet Clark, Petitioner, v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, Respondent, BMA Capitol Hill,…
Mitchell MERRIWEATHER, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 82-958.District of Columbia Court of Appeals.Argued…