good faith, regallyrevoked .tr : toseriby inro.rming trr.pr"i"tiroiiri.*,ur! t" fr. ",rr..pl.;ilir,. ugr..a ll..]r statementof facts sustains
The trial iudse found that the defendants, actingin
fl cqSeelyeFra bibliotek'V.
139N.W.2d 126(Mich.) 1966
McGREG.R, J' warren o. Seelye,Jr., the plaintiff herein, had obtained an exclusive listins agreement from th. .i#"J"ri., Mr. and Mrs. Eli Broad, for the saleof certainieaiestate.owed by the o.r.nau"L efter expirationof the agreement M1y 8: r9f2, rhe plaintiff continuei trrs .ro.t, to find a purchaser for the :n propertv. on the morning. of May t0. tg62,pruiniin,ul*ittli,d;;rfi;, offer of Jack Peltz to purchaseihe property for SdS,OOO.O0. This of". *".'..1ected by defendants. Laier the sameday,'derinau't-iii sro"a p."pu.J-ur'Jft.',o sell for $70,000.00 on a standard ofler-to-p.urchase form, signed the same in the place markedfor seller's acceptance, and'insertedthe provisionthat the offer wourd be took this instrumentand returnedit the sameafternoon, :?::.jq:iilay. .plaintitr srgnecl by the prospective purchaserpeltz, but- with the salesprice changed to $69.000.00 a.nd'apiovision'inserted.;q;i;i"; rr,. a.r."a"",ri"t;;; the cost of connecting.the Defendants"to.k th; ;tr;;;dJ.--' !i'uir"-rr,, fgygr ro the house. -- ' u'o info-rmed plaintif that they would let him know by 5:0Op;.m:l plaintiff went to.defendants, office,aUo"ut tO:dO a.m. on May ll, 1962, . they told him they had.sord. the pro?erty to'another pu.ty. riuintifi;", secured acceptance of defendant's-originar offer. At about l0:3b u.ir., o' t,tuy-i ltt (within the one-day period for whicfr the defendants' "tr;; ;; ;;ii^ il io?.-u,n oprn;, plaintiffpresented the defendants utrt trr. i"ri.ument of offer signedby Jack pertz, stating the price at $70,000.00 and omitting the.provision requirlng th! defendants to pay for the sewerconnection.Defendanis sold the prop.rty to a"party unknown to plaintitr for the sum of g60,000.00. . . . ^ In spiteof the fact that the written offer purportedon its face to be irrevocable for.one day, defendantretained_the power to terminateat any time the offer of unilateralcontractto the pla.inriff, sinie the ,"cord fuils-io;; ";;;";sideration for irrevocabirity.The principle stated in Ntght commande;-ttsiii,s"b"mpary) v. Br.own^appties here, even thoigh that case*ui .on..in.a;ri,f,;';;""tiact for the saleofgoods:
It is elemental that an order such as this, though it contained the words .,not subject to countermand," may be co-untermanded at any timi before acceptance. Until so accepted, it is simply an offer to purchase, and in no wa! creates a binding agreement.
this conclusion.The u.tuut pu..t ur;; ;;;;"i obtained by the plaintiff. This is not a casein which the seller reioked'trr. Ur"trr, rsting in order to avoid rhe pavmentof commissions and then ;"iJ;; ;';r;;;;; obtained by the effortsof the broker.A revocatio"l" lu.n crrcumstances is not effective to deprivebrokerof his commission. plaintifffailed to obtain a ready purchaserbefore his authority to sell -"^tj^t: 11-:was the property revoked, he is not entitledida commrssion. Thejudgment of the trial court is afirmed 'ni costs are awardedto appeilees.