ÿWPCB …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ w 0J 0TT 0^¨ 0h 0rn 0|à 0†\ 0â 1ur U,ç 0d U,w U>£ B)á DC  AMMU*šøÄv~¼ B:vÓW D3* 0@] AOÆì 0D² D/ö B%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡nnG HP LaserJet 3|xÜÓÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial îÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌFebruary€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€!# ;+'h|` ç `€€LßÌÌÌÓÓJACK€A.€MORRIS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àRutherford€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€92CV„76ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.€01„A„01„9408„CH„00391Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRICHARD€JOHNSON,€ET€AL,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌÌAT€MURFREESBORO,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌHONORABLE€ROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓRichard€L.€DunlapÌThird€Floor,€Commercial€Bank€BuildingÌParis,€Tennessee€38242ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌJohn€D.€DrakeÌ203€East€Lytle€StreetÌMurfreesboro,€Tennessee€37130ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€eXXdìXXdì7ÑÌÌJACK€A.€MORRIS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àRutherford€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€92CV„76ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.€01„A„01„9408„CH„00391Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRICHARD€JOHNSON,€ET€AL,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€appeals€from€a€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiff€rendered€by€the€trialÏjudge,€sitting€without€a€jury,€in€a€case€brought€by€a€licensed€real€estate€broker€to€recover€hisÏsales€commission€from€the€owner€of€the€real€estate.€€The€owner€listed€his€property€with€theÏPlaintiff€realtor,€who€obtained€the€signatures€of€a€prospective€buyer€and€the€seller€on€anÏAgreement€of€Sale.€€The€sale€was€never€closed.€€We€affirm€the€award€of€a€judgment€below€forÏthe€amount€of€the€commission.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àRichard€Johnson€was€the€owner€of€a€plumbing€supply€business€which€he€wished€to€sellÏas€a€going€concern.€€Defendant€Johnson€listed€the€business,€including€the€realty€on€which€it€wasÏlocated,€with€Plaintiff€Jack€A.€Morris,€a€duly€licensed€real€estate€broker.€€The€written€listingÏagreement€was€for€a€period€of€three€months€and€allowed€the€Plaintiff€to€receive€a€commission€ofÏseven€percent€of€the€purchase€price€or€$7,500.00,€whichever€was€greater,€when€the€brokerÏprocured€a€buyer€"ready,€willing,€and€able"€to€purchase€the€property.€€The€Agreement€for€SaleÍcontained€this€provision:€€"In€accordance€with€the€agreement€between€Seller's€broker€and€Seller,ÏSeller€shall€pay€the€Seller's€broker€the€sum€of€$35,000.00."ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAnother€clause€in€the€Agreement€of€Sale€requires€that€three€"contingencies"€be€metÏbefore€closing€could€be€completed.€€These€three€contingencies€were€that€mutually€agreeableÏclosing€documents€be€generated,€that€the€purchaser€do€a€due€diligence€review€to€determineÏwhether€material€changes€or€inaccuracies€regarding€the€financial€condition€of€the€businessÏexisted,€and€that€the€€current€employees€of€the€business€agree€to€remain€with€the€business€€for€a€Ïperiod€€of€€at€€least€€six€€months.€€€The€€Defendant€€argues€€that€€€the€€so„called€€contingencies€Ïwere€conditions€precedent€to€sale€and€that€the€second€contingency,€the€due€diligence€review€byÏthe€buyer,€never€occurred€and€that€therefore€the€Defendant€never€became€obligated€to€pay€aÏcommission€to€the€Plaintiff.ÌÓÓà àÌÓÓà àIt€has€long€been€the€law€in€Tennessee€that€when€an€owner€of€real€estate€agrees€to€pay€aÏreal€estate€brokerage€commission€"to€procure€a€purchaser"€of€the€land,€then€the€broker€hasÏearned€his€commission€when€he€effects€a€valid€written€contract€for€sale€of€the€lands,€upon€termsÏand€with€a€purchaser€acceptable€to€the€owner.€€òòParker€v.€Walker,€óó86€Tenn.€565,€570,€8€S.W.2dÏ391€(1888);€òò€Dobson€&€Johnson,€Inc.€v.€Weiland,€óó644€S.W.2d€394,€396.€€Neither€theÏpurchaser's€subsequent€refusal€to€perform€his€contract€of€sale€upon€grounds€not€attributable€toÏthe€broker,€nor€the€voluntary€failure€of€the€seller€to€compel€the€purchaser€to€complete€the€sale,Ïwill€defeat€the€broker's€claim€for€his€commission.€€òòParkeróó€at€569,€570;€òòDobson€&€Johnsonóó€atÏ396.€€This€is€true€even€when€the€buyer€refuses€to€complete€the€sale€because€of€an€alleged€flaw€inÏthe€title€and€where€the€owner€refuses€to€file€suit€for€specific€performance.€€òòParkeróó€at€570.€€AnyÏobjection€to€the€ability€of€the€proposed€purchasers€to€complete€the€transaction€should€be€raisedÏby€the€seller€before€the€seller€accepts€the€purchasers€by€signing€his€name€to€the€sales€contract,Ïand€such€objection€cannot€be€raised€after€the€contract€to€sell€has€been€signed.€€òòId.€óóat€571.€€TheÏseller€binds€himself€to€sell€to€those€particular€buyers€when€he€signs€the€contract€of€sale.€€òòId.óó€ÍThe€òòParker€óócourt€goes€on€to€give€this€policy€consideration€for€requiring€the€payment€ofÏcommissioners€to€real€estate€brokers€where€the€sale€is€never€completed:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€a€seller€prefers€to€release€a€purchaser€who€is€morally€and€legally€bound€toÏcomply€with€his€bargain,€he€ought€not€to€complain€if€the€law€holds€that€he€canÏnot€do€so€at€the€expense€of€the€broker,€whose€labor€and€ability€have€broughtÏabout€a€binding€agreement.€ÌÌ€òòId.€óóat€572.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àThe€western€section€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€dealt€with€the€issue€of€when€and€whether€aÏbroker's€€commission€€is€earned€without€the€occurrence€of€a€final€closing€of€a€sale€in€the€case€ofÏòòFrench,€Clayton,€Johnson€&€Associates€and€Fredrich€Clark€Realty€v.€Coker,€et€alsóó,€1993€Tenn.ÏApp.€LEXIS€675€(1993).€€In€that€case,€the€defendants€listed€their€house€for€sale€with€theÏplaintiff€realty€company€because€the€husband€of€the€couple€had€been€notified€that€he€was€beingÏtransferred€to€another€community.€€The€realty€company€procured€a€buyer€for€the€house,€and€aÏwritten€sales€agreement€was€signed€by€the€parties.€€The€sellers€then€learned€that€the€husbandÏwould€not€be€transferred,€and€the€buyers€and€sellers€mutually€agreed€not€to€complete€the€sale.€ÏThe€real€estate€company€generated€a€written€agreement€voiding€the€sale,€but€this€agreementÏexpressly€reserved€the€issue€of€commissions.€ÌÓÓà àÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€in€òòFrench,€Clayton€óó€had€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€plaintiff€Ïrealtor,€but€the€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€on€the€grounds€that€there€was€a€fact€issue€as€toÏwhether€the€realtor€had€orally€agreed€to€forego€receiving€a€commission.€€However,€on€the€issueÏof€the€effect€of€the€mutual€rescission€of€the€sales€agreement€on€the€entitlement€of€a€broker€to€aÏcommission,€the€Court€quoted€with€approval€this€language€fromòò€Realty€Associates€of€Sedona€v.ÏValley€National€Bank€of€Arizona,€óó153€Ariz.€514,€738€P.2d€1121,€1125€(Ariz.€App.€1986)€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€The€well„established€rule€regarding€entitlement€to€a€real€estate€commissionÏ[states€that]€in€the€absence€of€a€specific€contract€to€the€contrary,€when€a€realÏestate€broker€has€brought€together€the€parties€to€a€sale€or€exchange€of€real€estate,Ïand€they€have€agreed€fully€on€the€terms€and€entered€into€a€binding€contract€forÍsuch€sale€or€exchange,€his€duties€are€at€an€end€and€his€commission€is€fullyÏearned,€and€it€is€immaterial€that€the€parties€to€the€contract€rescind€mutually€or€thatÏone€or€the€other€thereof€defaults€and€the€sale€or€exchange€is€not€fully€effected.ÌÌòòRealty€Assocs.,€óó738€P.2d€at€1125.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€òòFrench,€Clayton€óócourt€€went€on€to€observe€as€follows€on€the€issue€of€entitlement€ofÏa€broker€to€a€commission:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€à àIf€a€contractual€provision€appeared€in€the€contract€specifically€addressingÏwhen€the€broker's€commission€was€earned,€such€would€be€controlling€betweenÏthe€parties.€€This€contract,€however,€merely€provides€that€"commission€shall€beÏpaid€by€the€seller€at€closing.€.€."€€Nothing€in€this€contract€indicates€that€closingÏwas€a€condition€precedent€to€the€earning€of€French€and€Fridrich's€commissions.€ÏA€contractual€provision€is€not€a€condition€precedent€unless€it€clearly€appearsÏfrom€the€contract€itself€that€the€parties€intended€such.€€òòMiller€v.€Resha,€óó820ÏS.W.2d€357,€360€(Tenn.€1991).€€No€such€intention€appears€after€examining€theÏcontract€as€a€whole.Ìà8 à€€€à àA€broker's€commission€is€not€affected€by€the€mutual€cancellation€by€theÏparties€of€an€executed€contract,€unless€the€broker€consents.€€òòSee€ConsolidatedÏRealty€Co.€v.€Graves,€óó291€Ky.€456,€165€S.W.2d€26,€29€(Ky.€App.€1942).ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€relies€upon€the€unpublished€case€of€òòInman€v.€Alexander,€óó1992€WLÏ4778,€5€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€for€the€proposition€that€the€general€rule€that€a€broker€earns€aÏcommission€upon€€the€€signing€€of€€a€€contract€€of€€sale€€may€€be€"varied€by€contingencies"Ïsimilar€€to€€the€€three€Ìcontingencies€found€in€the€parties'€Agreement€of€Sale€in€the€case€now€pending.€€We€do€not€findÌthat€the€òòInmanóó€case€supports€the€Defendant's€position.€€In€òòInman,€óóthe€broker€secured€a€contractÏof€sale€on€a€farm€signed€by€the€sellers€and€the€buyers,€but€the€sellers€could€not€close€because€ofÏlitigation€with€an€earlier€potential€buyer.€€When€that€litigation€was€resolved,€the€buyers€failed€toÏappear€at€the€closing.€€The€trial€judge€excluded€proof€of€the€buyers'€actual€ability€to€purchaseÏand€awarded€the€broker€his€full€commission€from€the€sellers.€€The€western€section€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€modified€the€trial€court's€judgment€while€upholding€the€exclusion€of€the€evidenceÏconcerning€ability€to€purchase.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€òòInman,€óóthe€contract€of€sale€stated€that€a€"commission€shall€be€earned€at€such€time€asÍthis€contract€is€accepted€by€all€parties,€and€all€conditions€herein€met."€€If€the€seller€breached,€theÏseller€would€be€responsible€for€the€commission,€and€if€the€buyer€breached,€the€buyer€would€beÏresponsible€for€the€commission,€but€in€either€event,€the€earnest€money€would€first€be€applied€toÏpay€the€commission.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€ruled€that€the€commission€was€earned€when€theÏcontract€of€sale€was€signed€and€cited€with€approval€€this€passage€from€the€case€of€€òòDobson€&ÏJohnson,€Inc.€v.€Weiland,óó€644€S.W.2d€394,€196€(Tenn.€1982):ÌÓÓà8 à[A]€broker€who€agrees€for€compensation€to€procure€a€purchaser€of€land,€hasÏearned€his€commission€when€he€effects€a€valid€written€contract€of€sale,€uponÏterms€and€with€a€purchaser€acceptable€to€the€owner;€neither€the€purchaser'sÏrefusal€to€perform€his€contract€on€grounds€not€imputable€to€the€broker's€fault,Ïnor€the€voluntary€failure€of€the€vendor€to€compel€him€to€do€so€will€defeat€theÏbroker's€claim€for€commission.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€òòInman€óócourt€goes€on€to€state€that€the€broker's€general€obligation€"may€be€varied€byÏcontingencies€and€broadened€or€narrowed€by€specific€contract."€€€€€The€òòInman€óócourt€applied€thisÏlatter€principal€to€hold€that€the€contract€of€sale€in€that€case€specifically€stated€that€the€buyersÏwould€pay€the€commission€if€the€buyers€breached€the€contract€of€sale.€€The€òòInman€óócourtÏtherefore€held€that€the€buyers€owed€the€commission,€but€required€the€sellers€to€reimburse€to€theÏbroker€toward€that€fee€all€of€the€earnest€money€previously€paid€by€the€buyers€and€pocketed€byÏthe€sellers.€€The€òòInman€óócourt€simply€applied€the€specific€terms€of€that€contract€of€sale€not€to€alterÏwhen€a€commission€was€earned,€but€to€alter€by€whom€it€should€be€paid.ÌÓÓÌÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€€in€€the€€case€€now€pending€€urges€that€the€three€contingencies€orÏconditions€in€his€Agreement€of€Sale€similarly€€alter€€application€€of€€the€€general€€rule€€because€Ïone€€of€€the€Ìcontingencies€was€never€met.€€This€argument€fails€for€multiple€reasons.€€The€contingencies€orÏconditions€contained€in€the€sales€agreement€and€applied€in€the€òòInmanóó€case€dealt€directly€with€theÏpayment€of€the€commission,€not€with€the€closing€of€the€sale.€€The€òòInmanóó€conditions€determinedÏwho€would€pay€the€commission€to€the€broker,€not€when€a€commission€was€earned.€€The€òòInmanóó€Ícourt€applied€the€general€rule€on€when€the€commission€was€earned€and€held€that€the€commissionÏwas€earned€when€the€sales€agreement€was€signed.€€The€contingencies€in€the€Agreement€of€SaleÏin€the€present€case€deal€with€contingencies€to€be€met€before€closing,€not€contingencies€to€be€metÏbefore€a€commission€was€earned.€€The€Defendant€would€be€correct€and€the€òòInman€óóexceptionÏwould€be€applicable€to€alter€the€general€rule€here€if€the€Agreement€of€Sale€had€stated€that€it€was€aÏcondition€precedent€to€the€broker€earning€a€commission€for€the€sale€actually€to€close.€€TheÏAgreement€of€Sale,€however,€did€not€read€this€way,€and€the€three€contingencies€were€mereÏcontingencies€to€be€met€before€the€sale€would€close.€€The€Agreement€of€Sale€was€silent€on€whoÏwas€responsible€to€pay€the€commission€in€the€event€of€a€failure€to€close.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€cites€the€case€of€òòTooley€v.€Cook,€óó262,€S.W.2d€875€(Tenn.€App.€1952)Ïfor€the€proposition€that€a€broker€may€recover€his€commission€on€a€sale€that€is€not€ultimatelyÏclosed€only€if€the€closing€was€prevented€by€the€fault€or€refusal€of€the€seller€to€close.€€As€isÏpointed€out€in€the€òòInmanóó€case,€however,€òòTooleyóó€is€distinguishable€because€the€buyer€and€sellerÏthere€had€not€entered€into€a€written€contract€of€sale.€€The€broker€in€òòTooleyóó€relied€unsuccessfullyÏon€a€contract€of€sale€which€he,€the€broker,€had€signed€with€the€buyer,€something€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€held€that€the€broker€had€no€authority€to€do.€€òòInman€óóat€11.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àMuch€of€the€proof€in€this€trial€deals€with€whether€the€Defendant€or€the€buyer€wasÏultimately€at€fault€in€the€failure€of€this€sale€to€close.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€DefendantÏ"sabotaged"€the€closing.€€€The€fault€in€the€failure€to€close€does€not€control€whether€or€fromÏwhom€the€commission€was€owed€so€it€is€not€necessary€here€to€review€all€of€the€evidence€thatÏsupports€the€trial€judge's€conclusion.€€€It€is€observed,€however,€that€the€evidence€was€more€thanÏsufficient€ÌÌÌto€support€the€trial€judge's€conclusion€that€the€Defendant's€conduct€brought€about€the€failure€to€Íclose.ÓÓÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Plaintiff€earned€his€commission€when€the€Defendant€and€the€buyer€of€the€businessÏsigned€their€Agreement€of€Sale.€€€The€terms€of€the€Agreement€of€Sale€and€of€the€ListingÏAgreement€when€read€together€made€the€Defendant€responsible€upon€the€signing€of€theÏAgreement€of€Sale€to€pay€a€commission€of€$35,000.00€to€the€Plaintiff.€€Nothing€in€the€twoÏwritten€agreements€altered€when€the€commission€was€earned€or€from€whom,€and€neitherÏagreement€made€the€earning€of€the€commission€contingent€on€the€closing€of€the€sale.€€The€trialÏcourt€is€therefore€affirmed.ÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÓÓÌÌà0 àÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÓÓ______________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÓÓÌÓÓ______________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓÓ