Law 531 Mark Realty V. Rogness Case Analysis
Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness Case Analysis
LAW 531
July 16, 2012
James Charnell
Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness
418 SO.2D 373 (1982)
District Court of Appeals of Florida
Facts:
Mark Realty Inc., a real estate broker, entered into four separate agreements with owner Tilman A. Rogness. Mark Realty was entitled to “exclusive right of sale.” For a stated period of time, this agreement gave the broker the exclusive right of sale for the property for a stated price and on stated terms. During the time provided, Rogness “canceled, revoked, and terminated” the brokerage agreements before the properties sold. The broker sued on account that brokerage commission was never received from the owner. The owner argued that since he canceled the contracts before the properties were sold, the broker never performed their duties and therefor was not entitled to commission. The trial judge ruled that Mark Realty Inc. had entered into a unilateral contract with Rogness which meant that the broker would only receive commission if he performed by “finding a purchaser of the above property.” The trial judge ruled in favor of the owner (University of Phoenix, 2012, Mark realty, Inc. v. Rogness).
Issue:
Didn’t Mark Realty enter into a bilateral or unilateral contract with Rogness? Is the broker entitled to receive commission?
Rule:
Bilateral contracts “contain mutual promises made in exchange for each other by each of the two contracting parties” (University of Phoenix, 2012, Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness, para. 3). Unilateral contracts are contracts that state one party is paid after they perform their duties.
Application:
No documents were found that stated commission will only be paid if the broker sells the property. The agreement that was signed indicated what one party would do and what he required for in exchange for his services; the other party then agreed. These documents became offers which then became contracts. By accepting these terms, the contract became a
LAW 531
July 16, 2012
James Charnell
Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness
418 SO.2D 373 (1982)
District Court of Appeals of Florida
Facts:
Mark Realty Inc., a real estate broker, entered into four separate agreements with owner Tilman A. Rogness. Mark Realty was entitled to “exclusive right of sale.” For a stated period of time, this agreement gave the broker the exclusive right of sale for the property for a stated price and on stated terms. During the time provided, Rogness “canceled, revoked, and terminated” the brokerage agreements before the properties sold. The broker sued on account that brokerage commission was never received from the owner. The owner argued that since he canceled the contracts before the properties were sold, the broker never performed their duties and therefor was not entitled to commission. The trial judge ruled that Mark Realty Inc. had entered into a unilateral contract with Rogness which meant that the broker would only receive commission if he performed by “finding a purchaser of the above property.” The trial judge ruled in favor of the owner (University of Phoenix, 2012, Mark realty, Inc. v. Rogness).
Issue:
Didn’t Mark Realty enter into a bilateral or unilateral contract with Rogness? Is the broker entitled to receive commission?
Rule:
Bilateral contracts “contain mutual promises made in exchange for each other by each of the two contracting parties” (University of Phoenix, 2012, Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness, para. 3). Unilateral contracts are contracts that state one party is paid after they perform their duties.
Application:
No documents were found that stated commission will only be paid if the broker sells the property. The agreement that was signed indicated what one party would do and what he required for in exchange for his services; the other party then agreed. These documents became offers which then became contracts. By accepting these terms, the contract became a
References: University of Phoenix. (2012). Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness. Retrieved from University of Phoenix College, LAW/531-Course Materials: Case Analyses.