Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Moylan v. Estes. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page case summary of a case in which the question before the court is whether or not two parties can legally renegotiate a land sale without paying a commission to the real estate broker to brought them together. The write summarizes the facts of the case, the procedural history, the holding, and the court’s rationale. No bibliography is provided.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khmve.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
land owned by Estes. However, the purchaser refused to go through with the contract and then, subsequently, contacted Estes directly and ultimately purchased some of the land in question at
a higher price per acre than the price specified in the non-consummated contract. Moylan sued in order to recover the commission that he felt was owed to him. The facts
of the case indicate that, first of all, Moylan was the initiator of contact between the principals, that is, the purchaser and the seller of the property in question.
Secondly, "through no fault of the broker," the prospective buyer refused to complete the sell, but rather immediately contacted the seller, Estes, separately, without using Moylan as an intermediary and
renegotiated in order to buy a smaller portion of the land in question at a higher price than was previously offered. The depositions given by the parties indicate that Moylan
was attempting to salvage the sale, with the possibility of also making an alternative transaction, at the very time when Estes was negotiating directly with the purchaser. The court states
that there is no question that "Moylan was the procuring factor in the eventual sale," as without his efforts the two parties involved in this transaction would not have been
brought together. Procedural History: This case came to the appellant court on appeal to a lower courts decision in favor of the appellee (defendant), in which a appellant (plaintiff)
sought to recover a brokers commission that derived from an implied contract. The lower court ruled against Moylan due to the rationale that Moylan was not entitled to recover a
commission on a contract that was never enacted. Issue/Question before the Court: The issue before the Court is how to interpret contract law in a matter wherein there is
...