00 by the amount of $21,500, which represents the commission paid to the Broker in connection with the subsequent sale of same residence. But Blum is objecting on the ground that it is entitled in the agreement. The Agreement problem was a standard form of Exclusive Right to Sell Listing Contract contained provision among others that Broker produces a customer to purchase ¦ at listing price¦ or at any price or terms as may be agreed between the parties as the authorized price.
The contract was in a sense a listing agreement where consummation of the sale was not made a requirement for the commission to applicable. Neither in the contract was it provided that the Broker is only entitled once to receive commission from the owner of the property. 2) Questions and Answers: 2. 1. Does a court have discretion to rewrite a contract clause when the result of the plan and unambiguous language of the clause leads to a harsh or unfair result?
The case provides the court has stated that it is not its function to rewrite the Agreement between the parties since the parties had the ample ability to bargain for contract terms that would have been more favourable to their respective interest. The statement was made by the court decided that the commission of the broker was not contingent upon settlement. The court quoted the provision of paragraph 25 of the contract in its explanation of the payment by the owner of the property as follows: ¦Settlement shall not be condition precedent to payment of compensation.
2. 2 Did Blum have a legal obligation to remind Holzman that the commission provision of the Exclusive Listing Agreement obligated him to pay the full commission if Holzman cancelled the contract with the first buyer? Blum is not legally bound remind Holzman that the commission provision of the Exclusive Listing Agreement obligated him to pay the full commission if Holzman cancelled the contract with the first buyer as their contract is was very clear. The court explained that the Agreement is clear and unambiguous that its provision control.
Although the court however admitted that is was really unfortunate that that the Broker did not opt to remind the Holzmans of the terms of the Agreement, as the broker was believed to more familiar with such terms yet the court perceived no breach by Blum as to the latters fiduciary duty to Holzmans under the circumstances. The court instead reminded that Holzmans had a duty to ascertain their obligations under the Agreement as one is duty bound to learn the contents of a contract before signing it.
3. Does the court imply in its footnote that it was not good for the business reputation of the Blum Real Estate Agency to seek to collect a commission under the facts before it? The court has in a way implied that it was not good to seek commission under the circumstances with court the footnote that it was certainly unfortunate that the Broker did not opt to remind the Holzmans of the terms of the Agreement, considering that the broker.
The same implication may be taken from Blums testimony as to his fiduciary relationship and his desire to do the best for the clients thus the court was somewhat surprised that the Broker has opposed its clients desire to obtain the highest possible purchase price for the Property in effect when the same property was again sold to another buyer who appeared to have a better offer than the first.
But since the court does not rewrite the terms of the contract, it declared its primary concern was to interpret a contract is to effectuate the parties intention. The court does this by looking to the language of the contract.
Holzman v. Blum Analysis, Inc, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 570, September Term, 1998 Leeth, 283 Md. at 617 McIntyre v. Guild, Inc. , 105 Md. App. 332, 355 (1995) Nicholson Air, 120 Md. App. at 63; Scarlett Harbor, 109 Md. App. at 290;