Great Article Marketing Tips That Can Benefit You
Plaintiff, a mortgage loan broker, appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California). The trial court directed a directed verdict in favor of defendant associates after plaintiff brought a breach of contract action to recover a commission on a brokerage agreement.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides more information about Labor Code 2699.3
Overview
Defendant associates appointed plaintiff, a mortgage loan broker, as its exclusive agent for a 30-day period to negotiate a loan commitment from a lender. The lender that plaintiff engaged did not provide a loan commitment that satisfied defendants’ requirements. Before the 30-day period had expired, defendants entered into an exclusive written brokerage agreement with a different broker, and this broker’s lender issued a loan commitment that defendants accepted. Plaintiff demanded his commission, and defendants refused to pay. The trial court directed a verdict for defendants. The court affirmed the judgment. Even assuming that defendants breached their contract with plaintiff, plaintiff had not shown that defendants’ breach proximately caused his damages. Plaintiff had not offered substantial evidence that defendants’ actions interfered with plaintiff’s ability to obtain a loan from his lender. Rather, plaintiff was not able to perform because of his lender’s refusal to provide a loan commitment that met defendants’ requirements. Thus, defendants’ breach did not prevent plaintiff’s performance or cause his loss of commission.
Outcome
The court affirmed the directed verdict in favor of defendant associates after plaintiff, a mortgage loan broker, brought a breach of contract action. Plaintiff had not shown that defendants’ breach proximately caused his loss of commission; the evidence showed that plaintiff was not able to perform because plaintiff’s lender could not provide a loan commitment in accordance with defendants’ requirements.
