This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, entered into an exclusive listing agreement with the Defendant to sell a property for a 10% commission plus gross receipts tax. The Defendant later sought to cancel the agreement, citing a clause allowing cancellation with the broker's consent. The Plaintiff requested extensions to secure a buyer, but no sale occurred during the extended period. Subsequently, the Defendant engaged another broker, who facilitated the sale of the property. The Plaintiff claimed entitlement to a commission and gross receipts tax, alleging the cancellation was invalid. (paras 2-4)
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Entered judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff consented to the cancellation of the listing agreement through its conduct. (para 4)
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the exclusive listing agreement, being subject to the Statute of Frauds, required written consent for cancellation. Claimed the Defendant's cancellation was invalid and sought commission and gross receipts tax. (paras 1, 5)
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the Plaintiff's conduct demonstrated consent to the cancellation, as the Plaintiff ceased marketing efforts and did not object to the Defendant's engagement of another broker. (paras 3, 7)
Legal Issues
- Whether conduct alone can constitute consent to the cancellation of an exclusive listing agreement subject to the Statute of Frauds. (para 1)
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Defendant. (para 9)
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Montgomery C.J. and Franchini J. concurring):
The Court held that the cancellation of the exclusive listing agreement was valid based on the Plaintiff's conduct, which demonstrated consent. The Plaintiff ceased marketing efforts, did not object to the removal of its signage, and competed with the new broker by presenting a different property to the same buyer. The Court distinguished between modification and cancellation of contracts under the Statute of Frauds, noting that while modifications require written agreements, cancellations can be effected through conduct. The Court also emphasized that the purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud, not to preclude oral rescission or cancellation of contracts. (paras 5-8)