Caseflicks

Washington Supreme Court • 1909

Muir v. Kane

55 Wash. 131 | 104 P. 153 | 1909 Wash. LEXIS 720

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that although an unwritten brokerage agreement is unenforceable, a seller may later make an enforceable written promise to pay the broker for the completed service.

Background

B. L. Muir, a Seattle real-estate broker, helped procure a buyer for the Kanes' property. After the buyer and sellers entered their written sale agreement, the Kanes agreed in that document to pay Muir $200 "for services rendered." The parties did not have a prior written brokerage agreement authorizing Muir to sell the property.

Muir sued to recover the $200. After a bench trial, the trial court found that Muir had made the sale, that the Kanes accepted it, and that they had not paid the agreed commission. It entered judgment for Muir. The Kanes appealed, disputing only whether the findings legally supported the judgment.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the sale contract was an agreement authorizing Muir to sell real estate for a commission within the statute requiring brokerage agreements to be in writing.

Holding

No. The writing was not a prospective brokerage-authority agreement; it was a later written promise to pay Muir a fixed amount for services already performed.

Reasoning

Washington's statute makes an agreement authorizing a broker to buy or sell real estate for compensation void unless it is in writing. If the instrument had been offered as Muir's authority to act as broker, it would have been deficient because it did not purport to employ or authorize him to make a future sale.

But the document was executed after Muir had already procured the sale. Its language promising him $200 for "services rendered" showed that it memorialized the Kanes' obligation for completed work, rather than creating an agency relationship for work yet to be done. The case therefore turned on the validity of that later promise.

Issue #2

Whether a broker's past services, performed without the written authorization required by the real-estate-commission statute, can support a later written promise to pay the broker.

Holding

Yes. The broker's completed services created a moral obligation sufficient to support the Kanes' express written promise to pay $200.

Reasoning

On its face, the instrument was a direct and definite promise to pay a fixed sum for services rendered, and thus was presumptively valid. Its asserted defect arose only from the underlying fact that Muir had acted under no written brokerage agreement.

The Court distinguished between an agreement that is unenforceable because the statute requires written evidence and conduct that is illegal or morally blameworthy. The statute aimed to prevent fraud and perjury by requiring written proof of brokerage arrangements; it did not make the broker's service inherently unlawful or morally improper.

The Court rejected the view, followed by some New Jersey decisions, that only a debt once legally enforceable but later barred—such as a limitations-barred debt—can furnish moral consideration for a new promise. In the Court's view, when the new promise is made, both that debt and Muir's claim rest on moral obligation alone, so there is no sound basis for treating them differently.

Because the Kanes knowingly accepted the benefit of Muir's completed service and then expressly promised in writing to pay him, their moral obligation supplied sufficient consideration. The trial court's judgment for Muir was therefore affirmed.