Cal. Civ. Code § 1624

Section 1624, subdivision 6, requires a written agreement subscribed by the property owner for a real estate agent to recover compensation for arranging an exchange of property.

Myres v. Surryhne · filed 1885-11-19(6)

Defendant objected to the offer, and the court against plaintiff's exception sustained the objection, on the ground that there was no contract in writing subscribed by the defendant, as required by subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code. The ruling is sustained by McCarty v. Loupe, 62 Cal. 299; Pacific Land and Trust Company v. Blockman, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 24; and Schuller v. Farquarson, 5 West C. Rep. 583; and upon the authority of those cases the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Section 1624(6) is satisfied when a landowner’s letters show that the owner employed an agent to sell the land.

Naylor v. Adams · filed 1911-03-06(6)

That Adams’ letters to Stanley clearly disclose his employment of Stanley as a-n agent to sell the former’s ranch there cannot be the slightest doubt, and this is all that is required by subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code.

Section 1624(6) requires a written agreement employing a real estate broker, but the writing need not state that the broker will be compensated.

Toomy v. Dunphy · filed 1890-12-10(6)

If, then, no recovery can be had without such proof of the employment, it seems to us that the object of the clause will be fully subserved by holding that, in an agreement like the one in question, the expressing of the fact of employment, without stating that it is for compensation, will suffice.

Section 1624 requires written authority for a broker to sell real estate; a letter that does not authorize the sale of the property does not satisfy that requirement.

Mendenhall v. Rose · filed 1893-08-10(6)

I think defendant’s objection should have been sustained, and, as this letter was the only written evidence offered of the authority or employment of plaintiff, the error in admitting it must be presumed to have been prejudicial to the defendant. The letter does not purport to authorize or employ the plaintiff to sell the real estate described by name (“Jose Reyes Bernal Rancho”) in the complaint, or any other real estate; nor does it admit or acknowledge any prior authorization or employment to sell any real estate; nor does it purport to authorize a sale of “Hoza Bernal’s place,” wherever and whatever that may be; nor can authority from defendant to sell Jose Bernal’s place be inferred from the letter, since such an inference involves the legal absurdity that defendant authorized and employed plaintiff to sell Bernal’s property.

Section 1624(6) requires a writing for an agreement compensating an agent for arranging a real estate sale or exchange, even if the agent cannot execute a conveyance.

Shanklin v. Hall · filed 1893-10-10(6)

Among the contracts declared invalid if not in writing, etc., by section 1624 of the Civil Code is: “6. An agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission.” The contract set out in the complaint is embraced in the findings of the court which we have quoted, and it appears to possess all the elements essential to bring it within the purview of the statute. It is not necessary, in the sense of the statute, that he should have been authorized to execute a conveyance of defendant’s real property.

Section 1624 permits a broker to recover a commission for a real estate exchange when the owner's signed correspondence sufficiently acknowledges the broker's employment.

Kennedy v. Merickel · filed 1908-06-19(6)

It is not necessary to state the language used in the correspondence other than as above mentioned, to show that there was sufficient acknowledgment by defendant in writing of the employment of plaintiff to make the exchange to satisfy the statute and entitle the plaintiff to recover his compensation for services rendered as a broker.

Section 1624 requires a signed writing evidencing a broker’s employment to sell real estate for compensation; an owner’s written willingness to sell does not suffice, and oral testimony cannot supply the missing authorization.

Kleinsorge & Heilbron v. Liness · filed 1911-11-23(6)

Section 1624 of the Civil Code, subdivision 6, provides that an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission is invalid unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent. ... We see no escape from the conclusion that the writing involved here was altogether insufficient to disclose the employment of plaintiffs by the defendant for the purpose of selling or procuring a purchaser of the land referred to in said instrument, and that it was improper and prejudicial for the court to have allowed parol testimony showing such employment under said writing.

Section 1624 permits a written authorization for a real estate broker to leave the commission amount to a verbal agreement.

Muncy v. Thompson · filed 1915-02-24(6)

The authorization being in writing, the fact that it did not specify the commission to be paid for the service rendered did not subject it to the objection that it was void under the provisions of subdivision 6, section 1624 of the Civil Code.- In the absence of any agreement as to commission, the agent, if authorized in writing to negotiate a sale of real estate, is entitled to a reasonable compensation for his services. Here it was agreed that plaintiff should receive the commission as per verbal agreement, which verbal agreement was clearly and properly established by parol evidence.

Section 1624 makes an unwritten agreement to pay a broker a commission for selling real estate unenforceable.

Porter v. Fisher · filed 1893-11-08

Section 1624 of the Civil Code merely declares that a contract or agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for a compensation or a commission is “invalid” unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged or by his agent. It is not a contract which is malum in se, nor is it malum prohibitum. It is merely an invalid contract, or one incapable of enforcement.

Section 1624 requires a new agreement employing a broker to sell real estate for a commission to be in writing, including an oral extension that effectively recreates the original agreement.

Platt v. Butcher · filed 1896-05-19(6)

If that covenant be construed as one in effect covering all the terms of the original written contract, then it was not an alteration or variation of that contract, but the creation of a new one, and, to be valid, should have been in writing.

Subdivision 6 makes an oral agreement to pay a commission for selling real property invalid when the promise comes from a party interested in the property and benefiting from its sale.

Crowell v. Ewing · filed 1906-10-17(6)

The $50,000 that the plaintiff was to receive under the oral agreement was for commissions as such on the sale which he was to assist in making, and as this was to be paid to him by a party interested in the property and for whose benefit the property was to be sold, the case comes clearly within the provisions of subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code, and the oral contract is therefore invalid.

Subdivision 6 permits a broker to sue for commissions when the writings sufficiently acknowledge the broker’s employment and agency.

Myers v. Holton · filed 1908-09-25(6)

The writings set forth in the complaint satisfy the provisions of the statute of frauds as an acknowledgment of the employment of plaintiff. They show sufficient recognition of his agency under subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code to support an action for commissions.

Section 1624(6) requires a written agreement authorizing the broker’s employment for the transaction on which a commission is sought.

Holland v. Flash · filed 1912-12-19(6)

Were it even conceded that the exchange with Levi was procured through the agency of plaintiff’s assignors, nevertheless, there was no written memorandum or agreement authorizing their employment in that regard, and for such services, under subdivision 6 of the above named section, no recovery could be had.

Subdivision 6 requires a written agreement to pay a broker a commission for selling real estate, including when a buyer later promises to pay the commission.

Ryan v. Walker · filed 1917-10-25(6)

We think that it can be safely said that as far as the action concerns the agreement to pay a commission for the sale of the real estate, it is within the provisions of said statute of frauds, and being invalid, it cannot be enforced, and this applies to the second agreement as well as the first.

Section 1624(6) requires a written agreement to pay a real estate commission to an intermediary who identifies a prospective buyer, even when the owner handles the sale.

Cram v. McNeil · filed 1917-11-16(6)

To be sure, it is the duty of an agent to exert himself to bring the parties together, but if the client is satisfied, as was the case here, to have the means furnished him by which he may himself make Ms deal with the opposite party, then the person acting as the intermediary is as fully an agent or broker, within the meaning of subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code, as though he had actually produced the proposed purchaser before his principal.

Section 1624(6) does not require a written agreement to secure a real estate purchase option or to compensate one broker under an agreement with another broker.

Howard v. D. W. Hobson Co. · filed 1918-10-17(6)

In other words, such an agreement does not come within the provisions of section 1624, subdivision 6, of the Civil Code, nor, to be valid, is it required by any provision of our statute of frauds to be in writing and “signed by the party to be charged,” etc. But we may go further and hold that, even if it were necessary to concede that the agreement in question in effect involved the employment of the plaintiff to purchase the Moore property for the defendant, still, since said agreement was between real estate brokers and not between a broker and the owner of the land, it was not necessary, to make it valid, that it should have conformed to the formalities prescribed by subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code.

Section 1624(6) requires a written memorandum of a real estate broker’s employment for a commission, signed by the party to be charged or its agent; a formal contract is unnecessary.

Arnold v. La Belle Oil Co. · filed 1920-05-01(6)

We think no discussion is necessary to bring conviction that plaintiffs’ exhibit No. 1 is at least a “memorandum in writing” such as will bring it within the purview of this section. It seems to have been the uniform holding of the supreme and appellate courts of this state that this section does not require any formal contract. All that is necessary is that the fact of employment be expressed in writing, signed by the party to be charged, or by his agent.

Section 1624 requires a signed writing for an agreement to pay a broker a commission for selling real estate, even when the person promising payment does not own the property.

Eaton v. Yount · filed 1920-06-18(6)

As said in Aldis v. Schleicher, 9 Cal. App. 373, [99 Pac. 526], the section is “equally applicable to any contract whereby one, whether owner or not, employs another to effect a sale of real estate and agrees unconditionally to pay a stipulated sum for the performance of such services.” This emphatic and terse statement of the law has never been questioned in any of the many later decisions dealing with this code provision, and to it we give our unqualified approval.

Section 1624 requires written authorization for a real estate broker’s commission; an instruction to pay the commission from escrow proceeds does not establish liability when the escrow is never completed.

Hargrave v. Moody · filed 1922-02-17

The material expression contained in the escrow instructions here exhibited constitutes a direction to the escrow-holder to pay five hundred dollars “commission” to these plaintiffs “from proceeds of escrow when completed.” This instruction was quite different from an unconditional acknowledgment of the alleged debt; it rested upon a condition, to wit, that it should be paid out of money which the proposed vendee should deposit when the escrow transaction was completed. The conditions authorizing this payment to be made never were satisfied.

Section 1624(6) makes an oral agreement to pay a real estate broker for finding a buyer unenforceable.

Crawford v. Kennedy · filed 1923-12-12(6)

The oral contract between plaintiff and defendant was unenforceable because it did not meet the requirements of section 1973 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and section 1624 of the Civil Code, subdivision 6.

Section 1624’s writing requirement for broker commissions does not apply to a subsequent written promise to pay for services already rendered.

Cole v. Low · filed 1927-03-07(6)

It will therefore be seen that in both counts respondents rely upon an alleged subsequent written promise to pay for past services, and, consequently, that portion of the statute of frauds invoked by appellant is not pertinent, the determinative question being whether said agreement as a whole fairly implies a promise to pay for said past services.

Section 1624(6) requires a written agreement or memorandum to recover a commission for assisting in the sale of real estate.

Kornman v. Nelson · filed 1927-06-06(6)

It is apparent that respondent’s compensation was contingent upon the sale of the property and the amount thereof dependent upon the sale price. ... Section 1624 of the Civil Code provides: ‘The following contracts are invalid unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent; ... 6. An agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell real estate for compensation or commission. ’ ... There are numerous cases cited in each of the foregoing cases and a long line of authorities independent of these and to the same effect which are in our judgment conclusive as to this phase of the case,.

Section 1624(6) requires a real estate broker’s commission agreement to be signed by the party to be charged and to identify the property sufficiently without parol evidence.

Glazer v. Hanson · filed 1929-04-01(6)

In a contract authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell real estate for a commission, there must not only be an instrument in writing signed by the parties to be charged, but the instrument must contain a description of the land sufficient in itself, or by reference, to identify the same without the aid of parol evidence.

Section 1624 applies to an agreement giving a broker authority to sell real property.

Daum v. Weber Showcase & Fixture Co. · filed 1930-01-04

It appearing that the power and authority to be conferred by the agreement falls within the inhibitions of section 1624 of the Civil Code, and section 2309 of the Civil Code, plaintiff cannot maintain his position, and the judgment is affirmed.

Section 1624’s writing requirement for real estate agent commission agreements does not cover a contract paying a sales manager to assist salespeople without authorizing the manager to buy or sell property.

Arbuckle v. Clifford F. Reid, Inc. · filed 1931-11-10(6)

This contract, as we view it, is not the kind of contract or agreement to which reference is made by said section 1624. It contains no authorization to respondent to either purchase or sell the property of appellant, but, on the contrary, simply makes him the business manager of appellant for the purpose of aiding and assisting its salesmen in disposing of its lands.

Section 1624 requires a signed writing establishing a real estate broker’s employment or a promise to pay a commission.

Irwin v. Klimper · filed 1922-02-14(6)

If the writing to which we have referred is sufficient to comply with the quoted section of the statute, and thereby constitute a valid contract, then, and then only, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. We think that the memorandum does not constitute an agreement authorizing or employing the plaintiffs to sell the property or a- promise to pay the commission.

Section 1624(6) requires a signed memorandum for an agreement to pay a broker to exchange property for land, because the exchange is a purchase of real estate.

Keeler v. Murphy · filed 1931-10-06(6)

We entertain no doubt, therefore, that this was a contract employing respondents to purchase real estate within Civil Code, section 1624, subdivision 6.

Section 1624 requires a written agreement when a person is employed for a salary or commission to assist in the purchase or sale of real estate.

Duckworth v. Schumacher · filed 1933-12-08(5)

Such employment, therefore, had for its sole object and purpose the sale of the real property, and such an employment is within the inhibition of section 1624 of the Civil Code. ... If one assists either in the purchase or sale of real estate on a contract for compensation either by commission or salary, he falls within the inhibitions provided in said section to the same extent and in the same manner as though he had been the sole and exclusive medium through which the purchase or sale was made.

Subdivision 5 requires a written broker commission agreement to sell an oil and gas lease that continues while production lasts, but does not cover a lease for a definite term of years.

Dabney v. Edwards · filed 1935-12-30(5)

Although we are in accord with the conclusion of the District Court of Appeal holding that the two leases which provide for a definite term of years were not included within the term, “real estate”, we are of the opinion that the two leases which provide in addition to the definite fixed term specified that the leases are to continue “so long thereafter as oil or gas or either of said substances is produced therefrom in quantities sufficient to pay to pump, or otherwise to secure and save ...” are included in the term, “real estate”.

Section 1624(5) requires a writing supporting a broker’s commission claim to recognize an agent and show authority to negotiate a sale for the owner.

Morrill v. Barneson · filed 1939-01-31(5)

In the present ease the complaint is doubly insufficient because the letter relied upon by plaintiff recognizes no one as defendant’s agent, shows no authority in anyone to negotiate a sale on defendant’s behalf and is, therefore, insufficient under the statute of frauds; and further, because the letter which is alleged to be the employment contract shows neither an employment nor an employment of plaintiff.

Section 1624(5) requires a written agreement to pay a broker a commission for buying or selling real estate, but permits an oral agreement for buying or selling personal property.

Meadows v. Clark · filed 1939-05-23(5)

As to an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission, the contract is invalid unless the same is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by his agent. (Sec. 1624, subd. 5, Civ. Code.) ... Since the legislature has expressly stated that for real estate the agent must have written authority to collect his commission and has failed to make such a requirement concerning personal property, it is quite clear that it intended to allow an agreement between principal and agent for the purchase or sale of personal property to be oral.

Section 1624(5) requires a real estate broker’s commission agreement to be in writing and signed by the owner; a broker who relies on an oral promise cannot use estoppel to recover the commission.

Sweeley v. Gordon · filed 1941-10-20(5)

Plaintiff is a real estate broker and as such is presumed to know that contracts made by brokers for commissions for the sale of real estate are declared to be invalid by the code and are unenforceable in the courts unless they are put in writing and subscribed by the owners of the property. He nevertheless failed to secure proper written authorization but relied upon the oral promise of defendant. The equitable powers of the court may not be invoked by one in his position.

Section 1624(5) requires written authorization for a real estate broker seeking a commission, but the amount or promise of compensation may be proved by oral evidence.

Caminetti v. National Guaranty Life Co. · filed 1942-12-14(5)

Subdivision 5, section 1624 of the Civil Code provides that “An agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission” is invalid unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged. ... Accordingly, the trial court committed no error when it permitted appellant to testify to the effect that Mr. Harrison, the president of National Guaranty Life Company, promised to pay him a commission for his services, nor in permitting respondent to rebut such testimony and introduce in evidence the letter of November 18, 1940, in an attempt to show that appellant never expected to receive a commission from the purchaser of the property but expected to, and did, receive a portion of such commission from the seller.

Section 1624(5) requires a signed writing that unequivocally shows the owner's employment of a broker to sell real estate for a commission.

Herzog v. Blatt · filed 1947-06-13(5)

The rule is established that in a suit by a broker to recover a real estate commission in order to show compliance with the requirements of section 1624, subdivision 5 of the Civil Code, the writing, signed by the party to be charged or his agent, must unequivocally show on its face the fact of employment of the broker, that is, it must show an authority to act or negotiate a sale of the property for the owner.

Section 1624(5) requires a written agreement for a real estate broker’s commission; an oral promise to pay does not by itself estop the owner from invoking the statute.

Young v. Bank of California · filed 1948-10-26(5)

If this language is sufficient to invoke an estoppel in face of the statute of frauds then any oral contract for the sale of realty permits recovery of a commission. The definite purpose of these statutes is to require such contracts to be made in writing with a duly licensed broker and to hold that an owner is estopped to rely on the law merely because he has made an oral contract contrary to the law would simply abrogate the statute.

Section 1624(5) requires a signed writing that shows on its face that the owner employed a broker or authorized the broker to negotiate a real estate sale.

Blanchard v. Pauley · filed 1949-06-07(5)

The rule is settled that in a suit by a broker to recover -a real estate commission in order to show compliance with the statute the writing signed by the party to be charged or his agent must unequivocally show on its face the fact of employment of the broker; that is, it must show an authority to act or negotiate a sale of the property for the owner.

An oral agreement to pay a real estate broker a commission is unenforceable, and the broker’s reliance on a promise to put it in writing does not estop the seller from invoking the statute of frauds.

Colburn v. Sessin · filed 1949-10-05(5)

In the instant case plaintiff did not change his position. He did not, as in the LeBlond case, yield a claim against one party to the transaction on the oral promise of another to pay a commission. The proceedings were initiated between plaintiff and the owners and the former, relying upon an invalid contract, brought the sellers and the purchasers together. Plaintiff was presumed to know it to be the law that oral contracts for a commission on the sale of real property are void and unenforceable.

Section 1624(5) requires a note or memorandum of an agreement authorizing or employing a broker to purchase or sell real estate; a general letter does not satisfy that requirement.

Blanchard v. Huthsing · filed 1950-04-27(5)

The letter upon which appellant relies is a general dissertation and in no sense is a “note or memorandum” of “an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate,” within the application of the above-mentioned provision of the Civil Code.

Section 1624(5) bars a broker from recovering the reasonable value of services under an unenforceable commission agreement.

Ford v. Palisades Corp. · filed 1950-12-28(5)

Where an agreement to pay a broker’s commission is unenforcible because of the statute of frauds, he cannot recover the reasonable value of time or money laid out under the agreement.

Section 1624 requires a signed writing authorizing a broker to sell real estate, but once the writing identifies a definite parcel, the agreement to pay a commission and its amount may be shown by oral evidence.

Herring v. Fisher · filed 1952-04-08(5)

They are sufficient to comply with the statute of frauds, supra, requiring some note or memorandum setting forth the terms of employment of a person to sell realty to be in writing, signed by the owner. When that requirement has been met with reference to a definite parcel, the agreement to pay a commission and its amount may be shown by parol.

Section 1624(5) requires a signed writing that unequivocally shows the employment of a broker seeking a real estate commission.

Hooper v. Mayfield · filed 1952-12-19(5)

“The rule is settled that in a suit by a broker to recover a real estate commission in order to show compliance with the statute the writing signed by the party to be charged or his agent must unequivocally show on its face the fact of employment of the broker.”

Section 1624(5) requires a real estate broker's commission agreement to be in a writing subscribed by the party charged; a printed letterhead qualifies only if adopted with the intent to authenticate the writing.

Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp. · filed 1949-05-10(5)

But it is a universal requirement that the statute of frauds is not satisfied unless it is proved that the name relied upon as a signature was placed on the document or adopted by the party to be charged with the intention of authenticating the writing. ... The four corners of the document give no indication of an intent to adopt the letterhead as a signature.

Section 1624 does not require a written authorization to negotiate a real estate sale to state that the broker will be paid a commission.

Bruner v. Van's Markets · filed 1951-03-28(5)

It is true that the letter did not state that plaintiff would be paid a commission. A memorandum required by the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5) need not include a statement that a commission will be paid.

Section 1624(5) requires a signed memorandum of a broker commission agreement; terms clearly implied by the writing may satisfy that requirement.

Hillman v. Koch · filed 1949-06-02(5)

The statute requires only that a note or memorandum of the agreement be subscribed by the party to be charged. (Civ. Code, § 1624(5).) While an essential element of the agreement may not be supplied by parol, the usual rules of interpretation are to be applied and the agreement will not be held deficient for the failure to express that which is clearly implied when the writing is interpreted in accordance with the intentions of the parties.

An oral agreement satisfies the statute of frauds when a memorandum of it is signed by the party to be charged.

Roberts v. Wachter · filed 1951-05-17(1)

The statute of frauds has no application to the oral agreement pleaded in this particular cause of action. This agreement had been reduced to writing by the memorandum of October 9th which was subscribed by Drudis, the party to be charged.

Section 1624 does not bar a principal from recovering a broker’s commission and secret profits after an oral brokerage agreement has been fully performed.

Steiner v. Rowley · filed 1950-08-11

Section 1624 of the Civil Code is applicable to the collection by the agent or broker of his “. . . compensation or a commission ...” and the enforcement by the principal of the broker’s agreement ... but it has nothing to do with the cause of action pleaded by the Steiners.

Section 1624(5) does not bar a broker’s commission when the owner waives the time limit in a written brokerage agreement by encouraging the broker to continue working after it expires.

Baker v. Curtis · filed 1951-07-26(5)

As we construe the authorities, the time limitation stated in such a contract may be waived and where, as here, the owner, after the time limit provided in the contract had expired, urged and encouraged the broker to continue his efforts to find a purchaser for the property, and the broker did so continue with the knowledge, approval and encouragement of the owner, and, as a result of the broker’s efforts, a purchaser to whom the owner sold the property Avas produced, under such circumstances the time limit in the written contract must be considered as having been Avaived and the broker ... is entitled to his commission. To hold otherwise would in our opinion permit the use of the statute of frauds to perpetrate a fraud.

Section 1624 does not require a writing for an agreement to locate an industrial site when the worker has no duty to negotiate or assist in purchasing the property.

Owen v. National Container Corp. of Cal. · filed 1952-12-22

An employment of plaintiff “to locate a suitable industrial site” without any duty on his part to bring the parties together or to negotiate or assist in a purchase would not be an employment to purchase real property.

Section 1624 requires a written agreement to employ a real estate broker for a commission; an oral agreement made after the written agreement expires cannot support recovery.

Augustine v. Trucco · filed 1954-03-29(5)

The oral contract was, therefore, an original agreement governed by the provisions of section 1624 of the Civil Code which requires a contract employing a broker to sell real estate for a commission to be in writing.

Subdivision 5's writing requirement for a real estate broker's commission is satisfied when the buyers' signed escrow instructions and related writings ratify the broker's agency and authorize payment of the commission.

Martin v. Chernabaeff · filed 1954-04-20(5)

There appears to be a sufficient compliance with section 1624, subdivision 5 of the Civil Code in this respect.

Section 1624(5) makes an oral agreement to employ a broker to buy or sell real estate for compensation void.

Edens v. Stoddard · filed 1954-06-16(5)

The statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5) makes void any oral agreement to employ an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation.

A broker’s full performance with the seller’s consent after a written listing expires can take the agreement out of section 1624’s statute of frauds.

Miller v. Cortese · filed 1954-06-01(5)

The effect of such cases is that where the broker has completed his part of the contract with the consent of the seller, after the time limit has expired, his performance of the contract takes it out of the statute of frauds, and also estops the seller from relying on that statute. ... Likewise'here. Appellant’s assignor had nothing to do with the Anderson transaction and that deal was never consummated.

Section 1624 requires a signed writing showing a broker’s authority to sell real estate for compensation, but the writing need not include the terms of sale.

Lathrop v. Gauger · filed 1954-10-05(5)

It follows that since the statute of frauds governing this type of transaction does not require the terms of sale to be incorporated into the broker’s contract of employment, it was unnecessary to show that Anderson was clothed with written authorization to transmit to plaintiff the terms upon which defendant desired to sell.

Section 1624(5) can be satisfied by a signed deposit receipt recording the seller’s agreement to pay a broker’s commission.

Collins v. Vickter Manor, Inc. · filed 1957-02-08(5)

The allegations of the complaint, with the incorporated deposit receipt, sufficiently state the following cause of action against defendant corporation: The corporation employed plaintiffs to procure a purchaser; plaintiffs procured a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy on terms sufficiently expressed in the deposit receipt; the corporation “approve[d] and agree[d] to” those terms; the deposit receipt appears to satisfy the statute of frauds as a written and signed memorandum of the corporation’s agreement to pay plaintiffs $3,000 for their services (Civ. Code, § 1624, par. 5; Code Civ. Proc., § 1973, par. 5); the corporation breached its agreement to pay plaintiffs’ commission.

Section 1624 requires a written agreement to employ a broker for compensation to procure an assignment of a contract right to purchase real property.

King v. Tilden Park Estates · filed 1958-01-20(5)

Viewing the evidence more favorably to the appellant, i.e., that it does show that an agreement was reached, we turn to appellant’s first contention that the agreement is not an “agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission,” within the language of Civil Code, section 1624, subdivision 5, and Code of Civil Procedure, section 1973, subdivision 5, because a contract right is not “real property.” We think the agreement alleged by the appellant perfectly fits the language of the above statutes.

Subdivision (5) is satisfied by signed escrow instructions that specify the broker’s commission and direct its payment.

Allen v. Gindling · filed 1955-10-03(5)

The execution of such instructions by defendants was clearly sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.

Section 1624(5) requires a signed memorandum for a broker’s commission agreement; escrow instructions can satisfy that requirement only within the conditions stated in the writing.

Sanstrum v. Gonser · filed 1956-04-13(5)

We conclude that the first two letters of the defendant (Exhibits A and 0 attached to the complaint), considered together or separately, wholly fail to satisfy the requirements of a proper memorandum under the statute of frauds; that the escrow instructions of May 11, 1954, within the limits fixed by the writing itself, constitute a sufficient memorandum, the conditions being that acceptance of the escrow proposal must take place on the terms and within the time limit, or any extension thereof, specified therein; that there is no substantial evidence of fraud or prevention within the meaning of the law, and that on the present record the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

Section 1624(5) requires a written agreement employing a broker to obtain an option to purchase real property.

Pac. Etc. Dev. Corp. v. Western Pac. RR Co. · filed 1956-10-05(5)

Accordingly, a contract employing a broker to obtain an option for the purchase of real property, like a contract employing a broker to purchase or sell real property ( Steiner v. Rowley, 35 Cal.2d 713, 717 [221 P.2d 9]; Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp., supra ), comes within the statute and must be in writing.

Section 1624(5) covers contracts employing a broker to obtain an option to purchase real property.

Pacific Southwest Development Corp. v. Western Pacific Railroad · filed 1956-10-05(5)

Likewise, the procurement of an option agreement for the purchase of real property is a contract that aids or assists in the purchase or sale of real property, and properly comes within the provisions of the statute.

Section 1624(5) requires a writing that establishes a broker’s employment with certainty, but the writing need not state the commission amount.

Davinroy v. Thompson · filed 1959-03-24(5)

The portion quoted above, however, establishes the fact of employment with certainty. The statute does not require that the writing contain all of the terms of employment. It is sufficient if the fact of employment is certain, and the contract need not state the amount of compensation to be paid.

Section 1624(5) makes an oral agreement to pay a real estate brokerage commission unenforceable.

Lane v. Davis · filed 1959-07-24(5)

The second amended complaint shows that the only agreement by which defendants promised to pay a 5 per cent commission to plaintiff was oral. Such an agreement is invalid and unenforceable.

Section 1624 may prevent enforcement of an oral real estate agency agreement against the principal without invalidating the agreement.

Slusher v. Buckley · filed 1959-10-09

While the agency contract was oral, this factor did not affect the validity thereof although it could have precluded its enforceability against Slusher. (See Civ. Code, § 1624; 23 Cal.Jur.2d pp. 393-394.)

Section 1624 is satisfied when the writing contains the essential promises; evidence may explain an ambiguous term without adding to those promises.

Rivers v. Beadle · filed 1960-08-15

No other terms or conditions are required to make a definite contract; hence there was no violation of the statute of frauds.

Section 1624 requires written authority for a broker to recover a real estate commission; an oral agreement or quantum meruit claim does not suffice after that authority expires.

Preston v. Carnation Co. · filed 1961-10-03(5)

The plaintiff should have known, under the circumstances, that unless the employment was evidenced by a writing he could not recover under either an oral contract or in quantum meruit.

Section 1624(5) requires a signed writing showing a broker’s employment to enforce a real estate commission agreement.

Franklin v. Hansen · filed 1963-05-14(5)

The telegram in the instant case fails to use any words in recognition of a contractual obligation for a commission.

A signed escrow memorandum that specifies a broker’s commission cannot support enforcement of an oral agreement for a larger commission.

Beazell v. Schrader · filed 1963-05-14(5)

But certainly a definite and specific limitation on compensation set forth in the memorandum by the one to be charged manifestly is not intended as surplusage. It must be presumed that defendant intended to obligate himself for the commission stated, and the escrow instructions cannot realistically be construed as a memorandum of any other obligation assumed by defendant.

Section 1624(5) requires a written authorization signed by the spouse to be charged for a real estate broker’s commission; the other spouse’s oral authorization does not suffice.

Tamimi v. Bettencourt · filed 1966-07-07(5)

Thus an oral authorization between husband and wife to sell real property, whether express or implied, falls short of the requirements of the statute of frauds. The trial court correctly found that defendant husband, who did not sign, is not liable for a real estate commission by virtue of the authorization to sell executed by his wife.

Section 1624 requires a signed writing employing a real estate broker for a commission; an acknowledgment of receipt that says nothing about a commission or employment does not suffice.

Ira Garson Realty Co. v. Avedon · filed 1966-11-23(5)

The only writing signed by Chotiner or Avedon was the paper stub which Chotiner signed acknowledging receipt of Neil’s letter of February 25. There was no reference in the letter or the paper stub to a commission. There was no language therein sufficient to constitute an employment of Neil to sell the property.

Section 1624 requires a real estate broker’s commission contract to be in writing to be enforceable.

Allen v. Powell · filed 1967-02-14

The fatal defect, however, is that a real estate broker’s commission contract must be in writing to be enforceable.

Section 1624(5) bars a broker from recovering a real estate commission under an oral agreement to find a purchaser.

Wm. E. Doud & Co. v. Smith · filed 1967-11-30(5)

Plaintiffs’ third cause of action is an attempt to recover their real estate commissions on an oral contract. The statute of frauds bars any recovery upon that cause of action.

Section 1624 requires a written agreement naming the real estate broker who is to receive a commission; corporate minutes promising a commission to an unnamed broker do not suffice.

Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum · filed 1967-12-19(5)

The representations made to her did not fulfill the requirements of an enforceable writing. The representation only informed her that the minutes of the Corporation provided for a 5 percent commission to a broker who made the sale. Plaintiff was bound to know because of her experience in the real estate field and because of her required knowledge of real estate law that even had there been corporate minutes in the verbiage as represented to her, she could not have a cause of action for a real estate commission against the defendant Corporation.

Subdivision 5 requires a written agreement before a real estate broker can enforce a fee claim against property owners.

Hasekian v. Krotz · filed 1968-12-18(5)

We also find meritorious defendant partners’ alternative defense that any agreement relating to the sale of the property would be unenforceable against them unless it was in writing. (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5.) It is conceded that on September 6, 1965, when plaintiffs entered into a written agreement with Krotz, the latter had no written agreement with the partnership. Consequently, at that time he had no enforceable rights against the partners.

Before its 1967 amendment, section 1624(5) required a writing only for agreements between principals and licensed brokers.

Zappas v. King Williams Press, Inc. · filed 1970-08-24(5)

Until its amendment in 1967 (Stats. 1967, ch. 52, p. 953, § 1), section 1624, subdivision 5 applied exclusively to contracts between principals and licensed brokers.

Section 1624 bars a broker’s claim for a real estate commission without a signed writing, unless estoppel applies.

Jaffe v. Albertson Co. · filed 1966-07-25(5)

Jaffe’s second cause of action is clearly barred by the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624; Code Civ. Proe., § 1973) in the absence of estoppel.

Section 1624(5) requires written authorization showing the broker’s employment; a deposit receipt and escrow instructions conditioned on completion of the sale do not support a commission when the sale is not completed.

Paulsen v. Leadbetter · filed 1968-11-04(5)

It is evident from the foregoing analysis that the three documents relied upon by plaintiff, whether considered alone or together, are insufficient to constitute an “authorization to sell” as required by Civil Code section 1624, subdivision 5. The letter is deficient for failure to make any reference to plaintiff’s employment. The deposit receipt and escrow instructions are deficient because they are predicated for their efficacy upon the consummation of the sale.

Services performed under an oral real estate broker agreement that the statute of frauds makes unenforceable can support a later written promissory note.

Fellom v. Adams · filed 1969-07-18(5)

Defendant has failed to consider that the promissory note is itself a written agreement, and that the moral obligation to perform an agreement, otherwise unenforceable because of the statute of frauds, will furnish sufficient consideration for the note.

Section 1624 makes the alleged oral agreements to pay a broker or finder’s fee unenforceable.

Osborne v. Huntington Beach Union High School District · filed 1970-03-17(2), (5)

Each of the alleged oral contracts is subject to the statute of frauds and unenforceable. (Civ. Code, § 1624, subds. 2, 5.)

Subdivision 5 protects property owners from commission claims by unauthorized brokers while protecting brokers the owner employed or authorized who acted in good faith.

Seck v. Foulks · filed 1972-05-15(5)

Under somewhat comparable circumstances, the general policies of law applicable to the situation at bench have been declared as follows: “The purpose of this statute [Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5] is to protect the owner of real property, not from every claim of a commission for selling same, but from claims from persons never by him employed or authorized to act. It is equally the policy of the law to protect a broker who has been so employed or authorized, and who, in good faith, has acted.” ... Here, plaintiff produced evidence adequate in quantity and quality to entitle him to that protection.

Section 1624(5) requires a written agreement for a real estate broker’s commission, and a licensed broker cannot prevent a buyer or seller from raising the statute of frauds through estoppel.

Deeter v. Angus · filed 1986-03-27(5)

A licensed real estate broker is presumed to know that a contract for a real estate commission is invalid unless it is put in writing and subscribed to by the person to be charged; however, an unlicensed person would not necessarily be aware of this law. Consequently, a buyer or seller may not be estopped from raising a statute-of-fraud defense in an action by a real estate broker.

Section 1624 requires a writing signed by the party to be charged for a real estate brokerage commission agreement; an unsigned open listing sign does not suffice.

Buckaloo v. Johnson · filed 1975-07-24(5)

Here it is certain from the face of the complaint that there was no writing authorizing plaintiff to negotiate the purchase or sale of Dark Gulch. Even accepting that the Benioff sign constituted an open listing to area brokers, it is clear that this alone would not suffice to satisfy the statute if for no other reason than that there was no subscription by the purported principal.

Section 1624 requires a written real estate broker agreement, but a broker who acts to his prejudice after the seller falsely says a writing exists may enforce the oral agreement.

Owens v. Foundation for Ocean Research · filed 1980-06-195

However, the statute of frauds in California requires a writing to establish the existence of a broker’s listing agreement (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5). ... The statute of frauds should not necessarily require a broker’s insistence on seeing the actual written contract before doing any work. An oral agreement is enforceable, despite the statute of frauds, where one party to the agreement is prejudicially led to believe a writing exists because of the misrepresentations of the other party (Civ. Code, § 1623).

Section 1624(5) requires a written agreement for a real estate finder’s fee, but an unlicensed finder may invoke estoppel to prevent its use as a defense.

Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. · filed 1985-07-25(5)

Under the plain language of the statute this contract, if it was entered into, was invalid. ... Tenzer is entitled to invoke the doctrine of estoppel to plead the statute of frauds.

Section 1624 requires a surety’s promise to pay another’s debt to be in writing, subject to exceptions for original obligations.

Zoran Corp. v. Chen · filed 2010-06-15

As Chen notes in part, a surety obligation must be accompanied by separate consideration unless contemporaneous with the original obligation, and it must be in writing, subject to the exceptions for original obligations listed in Civil Code section 2794. ... (Civ. Code, §§ 1624, 2792-2794.)

Section 1624(d) is satisfied by a ratified writing showing a broker’s employment; a separate writing stating the commission amount need not independently satisfy the statute.

Friddle v. Epstein · filed 1993-06-10(d)

Equally misplaced is the belief that if the commission provision in the June 27 agreement constitutes the “separate agreement” referred to in the July 7 agreement, the June 27 agreement must also satisfy Civil Code, section 1624, subdivision (d). The later agreement, as ratified by defendants, provides all that statute requires. Beyond this, no additional compliance with section 1624, subdivision (d) is necessary.

Section 1624(a)(4) does not bar a real estate agent from recovering commissions owed under an oral contract.

Sanowicz v. Bacal · filed 2015-02-26(a)(4)

Thus, ... (3) the statute of frauds does not bar recovery by an agent of commissions due him or her based on an oral contract (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)(4) [by exclusion]; Gorham v. Heiman (1891) 90 Cal. 346, 358; Iusi v. Chase, supra, 169 Cal.App.2d at p. 86).

Section 1624 requires an agreement for an interest in real property to be written and signed by the party to be charged; an oral agreement is unenforceable unless an exception applies.

Fullove v. Fullove · filed 2024-12-02(a)(3)

California’s statute of frauds requires agreements “for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein” to be “in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1624(a)(3). ... The Court agrees with Defendant: as pleaded, the statute of frauds bars relief.

A written authorization to employ a real estate broker satisfies subdivision 6 when signed by the party to be charged.

Martin v. Ede · filed 1894-06-18(6)

The authorization by defendant was in writing, signed by him who is the party charged, and is not, therefore, obnoxious to the provision of subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code.

Section 1624(5)’s written-authority requirement for real-property sale agreements does not invalidate a corporation’s contract to employ a sales agent for personal services.

Pettibone v. Lake View Town Company · filed 1901-09-27(5)

The contract here involved is for the personal services of the plaintiff. It does not purport to give him authority to make conveyances, and even if it were conceded that he could make no contract for the sale of lands that would be binding upon the corporation, it would constitute no defense to the action.

Section 1624, subdivision 6 does not require a writing for an agreement between real estate agents to share a definite profit the first agent receives from a sale or exchange brought about by the second agent’s services.

Jenkins v. Locke-Paddon Co. · filed 1916-03-03(6)

In the endeavor to harmonize these cases, and apply their principles to agreements between real estate agents affecting the sale or exchange of the properties of their respective clients, and particularly to the facts of the case before us, it would seem that the term “commission” should be given a broader meaning than merely that of a percentum valuation on the services of either agent; and that if it is made to appear that the first agent, by virtue of whatever understanding he may have with his principal, is to derive a definite advantage in the way of a material profit from the sale or exchange of his principal’s property, and that such agent does derive such advantage from a transaction brought about through the co-operation and services of the second agent, as the result of an oral agreement between them, the former must account to the latter therefor; and a case is thus presented to which the above-named provision of the statute of frauds has no application.

Subdivision 6 requires a writing that shows the broker’s employment or agreement for compensation before the broker can recover commissions.

Jamison v. Hyde · filed 1903-11-27(6)

The last amendment to the answer, then, was not of much importance, as defendant’s real defense was the statute of frauds, and she could have had the full benefit of this defense, and was entitled to the nonsuit without the final amendment to her answer, because the defendant had failed to show any valid contract of employment, there being no reference to any employment or agreement for commissions or other compensation in any of the writings introduced in evidence by him.

Section 1624(6) prevents a seller’s sale to a broker-procured buyer, by itself, from establishing a valid oral agreement for a commission.

Boyd v. Big Three Ranch Co. · filed 1913-05-15(6)

The question, therefore, presented, relates to the effect which should be given the act of defendant in making a sale to a purchaser procured by plaintiffs. Does that fact tend to show a previous valid oral agreement? Considered by itself, the answer must be in the negative, otherwise subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code is nullified.

Section 1624(6) requires a signed writing for an agreement to pay a real estate broker for a sale, even when the person promising payment is not the property owner.

Aldis v. Schleicher · filed 1908-11-19(6)

Section 1624 of the Civil Code provides in express terms that “an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission” is “invalid unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent.” While it is true, as said in Gorham v. Heiman, 90 Cal. 346, [27 Pac. 289], that said,provision was “designed to protect owners of real estate against unfounded claims of brokers,” it is, nevertheless, equally applicable to any contract whereby one, whether owner or not, employs another to effect a sale of real estate and agrees unconditionally to pay a stipulated sum for the performance of such services.

Section 1624 requires a broker’s commission agreement to be in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged, and to identify the property without relying on parol evidence to supply a description.

Proulx v. Sacramento Valley Land Co. · filed 1912-07-22

Contracts authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell real estate for a commission must not only be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged (Civ. Code, sec. 1624), but they must also contain a description of the property to be sold sufficient in itself, or by reference, to identify the same without the aid of parol evidence.

Section 1624, subdivision 6, does not require a written broker agreement for selling personal property merely because the owner later accepts real estate in exchange.

Deyoe v. Paonessa · filed 1915-01-23(6)

The evidence clearly tends to show, however, that the employment of the plaintiff was for the selling of personal property and not for the purchase of the real estate. When the contract of employment was made, the expressed desire of the defendant was to sell his contracts for money, or to exchange them for any kind of property acceptable to him. The circumstance that subsequently he did accept real property as a consideration in disposing of the contracts, did not change the terms or nature of plaintiff’s employment.

Section 1624(6) requires a written agreement when one broker employs another to sell real estate for a fixed commission; the exception for brokers cooperating to divide a commission does not cover that arrangement.

Sellers v. Solway Land Co. · filed 1916-08-15(6)

We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the plaintiff neither by the allegations of his complaint nor his proof upon the trial brought his case within the authority of those holding that a contract between brokers to co-operate in the sale of real estate for a division of the compensation to be thereby earned is valid and enforceable although not in writing.

Section 1624(6)'s writing requirement for a broker's commission can be satisfied by a signed promise made after the broker performed the services.

Carrington v. Smithers · filed 1915-02-02(6)

It is manifest that the said agreement in writing is sufficient in form to satisfy the requirement of the statute. A “note or memorandum” of the contract is all that is required. ... The foregoing conditions are all present in. the case at bar and it is believed that the promise is not invalidated by the fact that the original agreement may have rested in parol.

Section 1624(6)'s writing requirement applies to agreements employing someone to help sell real estate for compensation, even if that person is not a professional real estate broker.

Dolan v. O'Toole · filed 1900-08-10(6)

But this statute is not confined to those who make a business of buying and selling real estate for others, but includes every person who in any case comes within its provisions.

Section 1624(5) requires written authority for an agent to bind a landowner to a sale contract; the owner's participation in preparing the contract alone does not establish authority or estoppel.

Ramsey v. Chilson · filed 1922-05-24(5)

The fact that plaintiff and defendant were present while a third party reduced a proposed agreement to writing for execution; that defendant as owner of the lot suggested changes in the contract, which were made, and as thus prepared it was read to her and she understood its contents, are not sufficient to either confer authority upon such third party, acting in his own name, to sell her property, nor to estop the owner thereof from denying her execution of the contract.

Section 1624 requires a writing that authorizes or employs a real estate broker; a promise to pay from the sale price does not establish that authority.

Egan v. Pacific Southwest Trust & Savings Bank · filed 1928-05-17(6)

The first point discussed in appellant’s opening brief is the construction of said written instruments, contending that they do not evidence employment of plaintiff as required by section 1624 of the Civil Code. The writings above set forth do not purport to authorize plaintiff to act for said Davis.

Subdivision 6 allows a broker’s listing to satisfy the statute of frauds when its property description is sufficient to identify the property, but compliance must be shown for each owner.

Avis v. Rebhan · filed 1928-05-23(6)

However, we are of the opinion that, notwithstanding the court struck out the testimony, there is enough in, the record to show that the description in the listing is sufficient to comply with the provisions of the statute of frauds. ... Defendant Nellie I. Rebhan did not sign the listing card. No evidence is in the record showing that, as to her, there was a compliance with subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code.

Section 1624(6) requires a signed memorandum showing a real estate broker’s authority to act, but the writing need not be a complete contract or name the broker.

Moore v. Borgfeldt · filed 1929-01-16(6)

The statute does not require a complete written contract, but a mere note or memorandum showing authorization is enough. ... The written memorandum being, in our opinion, sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute, it was properly admitted in evidence. And the identity of the agent was properly shown by parol.

Section 1624’s writing requirement for a broker’s commission can be satisfied by the seller’s escrow instructions authorizing payment of the commission.

Coulter v. Howard · filed 1931-04-03

First, that the escrow instructions executed by the appellant on June 22, 1923, in which the escrow agent was authorized to pay respondent a commission of five per cent at the close of the escrow, was a note or memorandum within the meaning of section 1624 of the Civil Code and section 1973 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 1624(5) requires written authority for an agent to bind a landowner to a sale agreement, which the landowner may later ratify in writing.

Menveg v. Fishbaugh · filed 1932-05-13(5)

While it is true that there is no evidence that Ernest Pishbaugh had any written authority from his parents to enter into an agreement for the sale of said lots, and therefore under the provisions of subdivision 5 of section 1624 of the Civil Code such agreement would be invalid and not binding upon his parents, still the law is well settled that such agreement may be rendered valid and binding by subsequent ratification.

Section 1624(4) requires written authority for an agent to bind a principal to a real property sale, but the principal can ratify the agent’s act in a later letter.

O'Donnell v. Lutter · filed 1945-03-14(4)

This letter was signed for Henry J. Lutter by his brother, Elmer W. Lutter, and respondents assert that, as an agent for his brother, Elmer W. Lutter was without authority to bind his principal on a contract for the sale of real property, because such authorization was not in writing (Civ. Code, 2309; Civ. Code, 1624, subd. 4). However, we are convinced that by his subsequent letter of August 12, 1943, headed "Re: Sale of property 1379 Fifth Avenue Pomona, California, Prima O'Donnell, Purchaser," the principal, Henry J. Lutter, ratified the authority of his agent as exercised in the letter signed by such agent under date of July 10, 1943.

Section 1624(4) requires an agent’s authority to sell real property to be in writing.

Stark v. Byington · filed 1937-07-02(4)

Any authority whatever on the part of Henry H. Meyer to sell the lot in question would necessarily come under subdivision 4 of section 1624 of the Civil Code, and would necessarily have to be in writing.

Section 1624 requires an agreement to sell real property and an agent’s authority to make it to be in writing, but a third party cannot invoke the lack of written authority when the principal does not object.

Mitchell v. Locurto · filed 1947-05-07(4)

An agreement for the sale of real property is required by Civil Code section 1624 to be in writing. Furthermore, subdivision 4 thereof specifically provides that “such agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.” Such invalidity, however, may not be raised if the principal, in this case California Pacific Title Insurance Company, does not object.

Section 1624(4)'s writing requirement, together with the equal dignities rule, requires written authority for an agent to bind a seller to a real estate sale.

Felt v. L. B. Frederick Co. · filed 1949-06-02(4)

Turning to the cause of action against Frederick it was established that Hill had no written authority to bind Frederick as required by the equal dignities rule. (Civ. Code, §§ 1624(4), 2309.)

Section 1624(4) requires an owner's signed writing to authorize an agent to convey real property.

Lyne v. Bonner · filed 1954-12-23(4)

It is fortified by section 1624, subdivision 4, supra, which requires an agency for the conveyance of real property to be created by a writing over the signature of the owner.

Section 1624(5) requires a written authorization showing a broker’s employment, but the terms of the proposed real estate sale may be supplied orally.

Rogers v. Grua · filed 1963-04-10(5)

Unlike the contract for the sale of real property, the broker’s authorization • to sell need not contain all of the terms and conditions upon which the real property is to be sold. The details of the sale may be supplied orally pursuant to the broker’s authorization, so long as the fact of employment is reduced to writing.

A written memorandum of a broker’s employment must show the broker’s authority to act for the principal; a reference to commission alone does not suffice.

Barcelon v. Cortese · filed 1968-06-26(5)

We hold that in view of Barcelon’s failure to meet the strict requirement of the statute, the trial court properly concluded that the June 1, 1961 letter was not a sufficient memorandum of Barcelon’s authority to act for Córtese.

Section 1624(d) allows related writings signed by the party to be charged or its agent to establish a broker’s authority to procure a tenant by reasonable implication.

Rader Co. v. Stone · filed 1986-02-27(d)

Mueller’s handwritten signature on the registration form is thus sufficient to satisfy the subscription requirement as to this set of writings. ... As no other conceivable purpose could be served by Stone’s having Rader register PSR as a prospective tenant, the writings warrant drawing the inference Stone authorized Rader to procure PSR as a tenant for the property. Taken as a whole, the documents sufficiently plead as against a demurrer, adequate written memoranda between the parties authorizing Rader to proceed as it did.

Section 1624(d) requires a writing signed by the party to be charged for an agreement to pay a broker a commission for procuring a real estate buyer.

Colbaugh v. Hartline · filed 1994-11-07(d)

There was no evidence of such a written cooperation agreement here. “Any action against either the vendor or the vendee group based on contract or implied contract must fail for want of compliance with the statute of frauds. Civil Code section 1624, subdivision 5 [now subdivision (d)], requires a writing subscribed by the party to be charged for ‘An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate, . . . or to procure, introduce, or find a purchaser or seller of real estate ... for compensation or a commission.”

Section 1624(a)(4) requires a signed writing for a real estate broker’s commission agreement, even when the agreement is implied by conduct.

Westside Estate Agency, Inc. v. Randall · filed 2016-12-01(a)(4)

Thus, the fact that Westside is now asserting that its agreement with the Randalls is implied by conduct rather than an express, oral agreement is irrelevant.

Section 1624(a)(4) requires a real estate broker’s commission agreement to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged or that party’s agent; extrinsic evidence may clarify whom an ambiguous agreement binds.

Jacobs v. Locatelli · filed 2017-02-08(a)(4)

We are of the view that the trial court should have allowed the case to proceed so that Jacobs could introduce extrinsic evidence of the manner in which Locatelli signed the agreement and that its failure to do so runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s pragmatic approach to the statute of frauds as set forth in Sterling.

Section 1624(6) does not require an agreement between brokers to cooperate in a sale and share commissions to be in writing.

Gorham v. Heiman · filed 1891-07-24(6)

But, clearly, that provision was only designed to protect owners of real estate against unfounded claims of brokers. It does not extend to agreements between brokers to co-operate in making sales for a share of the commissions.

Section 1624 permits brokers to agree orally to share a real estate commission when a valid underlying commission contract exists.

Saunders v. Yoakum · filed 1910-02-03

It is determined in Gorham v. Heiman, 90 Cal. 358, [27 Pac. 289], that section 1624 of the Civil Code does not extend to agreements between brokers to' co-operate in making sales for a share of the commission, and that recovery can be had in such cases where only an oral agreement is established. This, however, presupposes that a valid contract for commissions is existent, a division of which could be subject of subsequent oral agreement.

Section 1624’s writing requirement for broker commissions protects property owners and does not apply to agreements between brokers to share commissions.

Johnston v. Porter · filed 1913-02-05(6)

Subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code, which declares an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell real estate for a compensation or commission to be invalid unless reduced to writing was designed only for the protection of real estate owners against the unfounded claims of brokers; and it was never intended to be applied to contracts between brokers co-operating in the sale of real property and agreeing to share commissions earned as a result of such sale.

Subdivision 6 does not require a written agreement when one real estate broker agrees to share commissions with another broker who assists in selling land.

Hageman v. O'Brien · filed 1914-04-03(6)

The defendants were not owners employing plaintiff to sell their land. They were merely agents arranging with another agent to assist in the business of their agency. An agreement to pay for such services does not require a writing to establish its validity.

Section 1624 does not require a written contract to pay for identifying land for a buyer and advising its purchase.

Wilson v. Morton · filed 1890-09-10

The contract was not one required by the statute of frauds to be in writing. Section 1624 of the Civil Code does not apply. ... The compensation claimed by them is for services rendered in pointing out property purchased by the latter, and for advice given them.

Section 1624 does not require an agreement between brokers to split a real estate commission to be in writing.

Kennedy v. Johnson · filed 1930-11-19(6)

Further contention is made that the purported agreement not being in writing was unenforceable and in violation of section 1624 of the Civil Code, commonly called the statute of frauds. This contention is untenable. It has been repeatedly held that an agreement between brokers to split commissions need not be in writing.

Section 1624 does not require a written agreement between brokers to share real estate commissions.

Holland v. Morgan & Peacock Properties Co. · filed 1959-02-26(5)

Appellants also contend that the contract is within the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5) and, since admittedly oral, is therefore invalid. But the rule is clear that the statute does not apply to a contract between brokers for the sharing of commissions.

Section 1624(5) does not bar a broker from recovering under an oral agreement with another broker when the owner has paid that broker a commission.

Iusi v. Chase · filed 1959-03-25(5)

Of course, an agreement “authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate” is invalid unless written. (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5.) However, the long-established rule is that this provision does not extend to agreements between brokers. ... But where the commission has in fact been paid by the owner to one broker, even though there was no written contract between them, the second broker can recover upon his oral contract with the first broker.

Section 1624 permits oral agreements between real estate brokers to share commissions; its writing requirement protects property owners against brokers’ unfounded claims.

Goossen v. Adair · filed 1960-10-31(4), (5)

There is no doubt that real estate brokers may make valid and enforceable oral contracts for the division of commissions between themselves and that the provisions of Civil Code, section 1624, subdivisions 4 and 5, and Code of Civil Procedure, section 1973, subdivision 5, requiring agreements authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell real estate to be reduced to writing, are for the protection of real estate owners against unfounded claims of brokers; and were never intended to be applied to contracts between brokers agreeing to share commissions.

Section 1624 does not bar an oral agreement by a broker to share a real estate commission with another broker.

Wilson v. Anderson · filed 1962-10-01(4), (5)

the provisions of Civil Code, section 1624, subdivisions 4 and 5, and Code of Civil Procedure, section 1973, subdivision 5, requiring agreements authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell real estate to be reduced to writing, are for the protection of real estate owners against unfounded claims of brokers; and were never intended to be applied to contracts between brokers agreeing to share commissions. ... We think the same reasoning applies to the instant situation.

Section 1624(5) does not require a written finder’s fee agreement with a broker when no buyer or seller of real estate is a party.

Grant v. Marinell · filed 1980-11-25(5)

We agree with plaintiff that the judgment must be reversed, but base our decision on reasoning slightly different than his: we have concluded that the agreement as alleged did not fall within the purview of Civil Code section 1624, subdivision 5, because no principal, that is to say, no seller or buyer of real estate, was a party thereto.

Section 1624’s one-year rule does not bar an oral agreement explaining the purpose of a written mortgage and identifying who may benefit from it.

Tapia v. Demartini · filed 1888-11-21

As to the claim made by appellant that the contract, being in parol, must be performed within one year, it is sufficient to say that it is the written contract—the mortgage—that is to be performed. The parol agreement can only have the effect to explain the object of the mortgage, and determine for whose benefit it may be enforced.

Section 1624 requires a writing for an agreement that, by its terms, cannot be performed within one year.

McKeany v. Black · filed 1897-07-22(1)

By accepting the promise, with the note, plaintiff agreed to accept payment from Lilienthal at the maturity of the note, and did not agree to accept payment from him before that date; and the test is, not whether the plaintiff might not have been willing to accept payment sooner, but whether under the terms of the contract, made by the promise and its acceptance, he could have been compelled to accept payment from the respondent before tbe expiration of three years from the date of the note. I think it is clear that he could not, and that therefore the promise was within the statute and void.

Section 1624(1) makes an oral lease for a one-year term void when the term begins after the agreement is made.

Gabel v. Page · filed 1907-10-11(1)

The first was to the effect that if the jury found, from the evidence, that the plaintiff by her agent leased the premises by verbal lease to the defendant for the term of one year, to commence on the date of the expiration of the written lease, such oral lease was void. ... These instructions, with commendable brevity, state the law correctly under the evidence.

Section 1624(1) applies only to agreements that, fairly and reasonably interpreted, cannot be performed within a year.

Hellings v. Wright · filed 1916-02-11(1)

The contract between plaintiff and defendant was not void by virtue of subdivision 1 of section 1624 of .the Civil Code concerning “an agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.’’ ... The statute does not declare void a contract which may not be performed within a year, or which is not likely to be performed within that period. It includes only agreements which, fairly and reasonably interpreted, do not admit of a valid execution within the year.

Section 1624 requires a one-year oral lease to be fully performable within one year of the agreement, even if the lease term begins later.

Wickson v. Monarch Cycle Manufacturing Co. · filed 1900-03-23(1), (5)

The two subdivisions are to be read and construed together, and, as so read, a parol lease is valid for one year, but must be for no longer than one year from the tune it is made.

Section 1624 requires a writing for a services contract that cannot be fully performed within a year; partial performance does not remove that requirement.

Long v. Long · filed 1912-03-27

The court made no finding as to the fact that they were oral, but it did find the conclusion that they were not void under section 1624. ... Part performance of such contracts, where entire performance is not to be made within a year, does not take the contract out of the statute.

Section 1624(1) does not bar a partially performed oral partnership agreement merely because the alleged partnership term exceeds one year.

Doudell v. Shoo · filed 1912-11-27(1)

The agreement here was partially executed—that is, the parties after the formation of the partnership, entered into the active prosecution of the partnership business immediately upon securing the property necessary to do so and continued the partnership until the plaintiff was forcibly excluded from any participation therein by the defendant, John J. Shoo, and even if the allegation as to the time during which the alleged partnership was to exist had not been stricken out, the objection here made to the agreement as thus pleaded would still have been unavailable, since the partnership would necessarily exist until dissolved.

A contract that by its terms cannot be performed within one year requires a written memorandum signed by the party to be charged.

Walker v. Harbor Business Blocks Co. · filed 1919-12-30(1)

While it may be conceded that the proposed form of extension which was left by plaintiff at the office of the defendant on May 17, 1917, was, in the contemplation of the statute of frauds, such a memorandum, it is clear, nevertheless, that it does not meet the requirements of the statute for the reason that it was not signed by the party to be charged.

Section 1624(1) does not invalidate a principal’s agreement to pay a debt when the principal authorized a surety to borrow the money for him and execute the note.

Josephian v. Lion · filed 1924-04-22(1)

The agreement of appellant to pay the debt was not subject to the objection that it is void for the reason that it fails to measure up to the demands of section 1624 of the Civil Code. ... In equity the transaction is precisely the same as if the appellant himself had actually signed the note, and this, as before suggested, upon the principle that “what ought to be done is to be considered as done” (2 Spence’s Bq. Jur. 253), or, as Story puts it, “equity looks upon that as done which ought to have been done.”

Section 1624(1) invalidates an oral agreement that by its terms cannot be performed within one year of its making.

Hanley v. Murphy · filed 1924-12-08(1)

The agreement here, according to the testimony of the defendant himself, was made in the month of September, 1920, and its operative effect was to begin on October 1, 1920, and to continue until October 1, 1921. It rested wholly in parol, and was not to be performed within a year from the time it was made. Hence “it did violence to the statute of frauds.”

Section 1624 makes an oral agreement that cannot be performed within one year unenforceable, but its compensation terms may be admitted as evidence of the reasonable value of services performed.

Offeman v. Robertson-Cole Studios, Inc. · filed 1926-11-26

Admittedly, the agreement between the parties being oral and not to be performed within a year from the making thereof, it is unenforceable under the provisions of section 1624 of the Civil Code and section 1973 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ... Even though an oral contract may be unenforceable, the oral stipulations of the parties as to the compensation to be paid for services rendered under it are in the nature of admissions by them as to the reasonable value of such services and, while not conclusive, are admissible in evidence.

Section 1624 does not require a writing for an indefinite service arrangement payable when it ends, and its lifetime-performance provision does not bar recovery for those services in quantum meruit.

Mayborne v. Citizens Trust & Savings Bank · filed 1920-02-19(1), (7)

This rule does not apply to contracts, either express or implied, for the rendition of services for an indefinite period of time and payment to be made at the termination of the relationship. ... Nor do we think that subdivision 7 of said section, requiring a writing for the validity of an agreement “which by its terms is not to be performed during the lifetime of the promisor, or an agreement to devise or bequeath any property or to make any provision for any person by will,” applies to a case like this for recovery upon a quantum meruit.

Section 1624 bars an oral promise never to reenter a business when the promise cannot be performed within a year.

Summerhays v. Scheu · filed 1935-12-11

Such an oral agreement as here ... alleged, was obviously not. to be performed within a year, and would fall within the provisions of section 1624 of the Civil Code and therefore would be barred by the statute of frauds.

Section 1624(1) does not bar an oral promise that can be performed within one year, even if performance within that period is unlikely.

Banta v. Rosasco · filed 1936-03-12(1)

The answer to this is that the debt could have been paid within the year. The statute does not declare void a promise not in writing which may not be performed within a year, or which is not likely to be performed within that period. It embraces only such promises which do not admit of a valid execution within the year. The possibility of performance within that period is sufficient to take the promise outside the statute.

Section 1624(1) does not bar an oral agreement to care for children during their minority when the agreement could be fully performed within one year.

Gaskins v. Security-First National, Bank · filed 1939-01-19(1)

It could also be said that even assuming the contract with the original guardian was not in writing, its performance was not by its terms postponed beyond one year. In the case at bar the contract was to care for the minor children of the incompetent during their minority, with payment to be made when the youngest attained majority. Obviously such a contract might be fully performed in one year from the date of its execution, as, for instance, would be the case should all the minor children have died within the first year.

Section 1624's one-year rule applies to an oral contract only if the contract cannot be performed within one year.

Hollywood Motion Picture Equipment Co. v. Furer · filed 1940-09-03

The contract itself must contain language whose reasonable interpretation shows a clear intention that it cannot be performed within the year.

Section 1624(1) counts the year from the day after an agreement is made, so an oral one-year employment contract beginning that day does not require a writing.

Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeToth · filed 1945-07-30(1)

[1] An oral contract of employment for a period of one year "immediately next ensuing," with rendition of service to commence on the day after the agreement is entered into, is not within the statute of frauds. [2] In applying that provision of the statute (Civ. Code, 1624, subd. 1), requiring an agreement to be in writing which by its terms is not to be performed "within a year from the making thereof," the words "from the making thereof" are now uniformly construed to exclude the day upon which the agreement is made; that is, the year is considered to begin with the following day and to end at the close of the anniversary of the day on which the agreement is made (Nickerson v. Harvard College, 298 Mass. 484 [11 N.E.2d 444; 114 A.L.R. note, p. 416]; 49 Am.Jur. 24, p. 385, 54, p. 411; Rest., Contracts (vol. 1) 198, comment d).

Section 1624’s one-year writing requirement does not apply to an express or implied agreement for services of indefinite duration, with payment due when the relationship ends.

Lloyd v. Kleefisch · filed 1941-12-11(1)

This rule does not apply to contracts, either express or implied, for the rendition of services for an indefinite period of time and payment to be made at the termination of the relationship.

Section 1624’s one-year writing requirement does not apply to express or implied service contracts of indefinite duration when payment is due at the end of the relationship.

Wescoatt v. Meeker · filed 1944-03-30(1)

Nor do the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 1624 of the Civil Code, which require an agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof to be evidenced by a writing subscribed by the party to be charged, apply “to contracts, either express or implied, for the rendition of services for an indefinite period of time and payment to be made at the termination of the relationship.”