Steele v. Lawyer

Citations

• 47 Wash. 266
• 91 P. 958
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 752

Syllabus

<p>Brokers—Employment—Principal and Agent—Relationship— Evidence—Sufficiency. Brokers are not shown to be the agents of the owners, although they accepted a commission, where it appears from the correspondence between them that the brokers, claiming to have a client desiring the property, first sought employment, and then an option, that the owners refused employment to them as agents on a commission basis, and refused them an option, but fixed their own price “net,” and after much correspondence offers were made direct and accepted, which precluded any legal claim for a commission, although the owners did pay a commission and may . not have been informed that the brokers were interested in the purchase, the brokers not having demanded the commission, and the parties having dealt at arm’s length.</p>