Saturday, May 17, 2014

Allen v. Lindstrom case brief summary

Allen v. Lindstrom case brief summary

parcel of land is listed by Coldwell (listing agent) - gets the commission when sold
land owned by Lindstrom
two potential buyers
don't have an agent and submit a bid through another Coldwell agent, Rush
have own agent
submit a bid through their agent to Coldwell to Lindstrom
bid, counter bid
Allens drop out, but tell Rush to let them know if there is movement
McGowans give a bid that's close to what Lindtrom want
deal not finalized until the next day
Rush calls up Allens and they submit a bid and finalize it that night
Lindstroms find out about it and enter into second contract with McGowans
rush the closing and close with McGowans before Allen's scheduled closing
Allens sue for specific performance
Procedural Posture
lower court denies Allens plea because there was an agency relationship between Rush and Allen
specific performance is equitable remedy
since you were principals for Rush who acted in an underhanded way, you the principals will be denied relief as principals for shady agent
Was there an agency relationship btw Rush and Allens?
did Rush agree to act as Allens agent and under their control?
no, because part of Coldwell, Rush was acting for the seller
and there was no control by the Allens
Rush was doing what a listing agent would do
no agency relationship with Allens, because no control
Rush was acting on behalf of Lindtroms by bringing in potential buyers
So anything unethical that Rush did, the Allens are not resposible for because Rush wasn't their agent
So, they have the right to demand specific performance

1 comment:

  1. Allen v. Lindstrom, Sup Ct of Virginia (1989) (p. 12)
    a. Does a real estate agent owe a duty to a prospective purchaser to communicate a purchase offer to a seller, where the agent is acting as the exclusive real estate broker for the seller?
    b. Lindstroms owned property. Allens and McGowans were both prospective purchasers. Allens had made first bid; rejected by sellers as too low. They asked the seller’s broker to “keep them informed of any activity.” McGowans made an offer through their agent. Seller’s agent informed the Allens; Allens made another offer, which was accepted by sellers. Later, sellers learned that the McGowan K would have had more favorable terms, so they dishonored the Allen K and sold to McGowan.
    c. Undisputed that the sellers’ agents failed to disclose all relevant facts to the seller.
    d. Agency is the relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and the agreement by the other so to act.
    1. Burden of proof is on the one who alleges agency
    2. No presumption that agency exists; persons are legally presumed to act for oneself and not as agent for another.
    e. Undisputed that Coldwell Banker/Rush was the sellers’ agent. No evidence that Rush was the Allens’ agent. However, award of specific performance to fulfill the Allen K.


The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...