Contracts — Evidence — Parol evidence rule — Written agreement — Separate letter waiving commission rights.
In this action of assumpsit by a real estate broker in which it appeared that a form of written agreement for the sale of land owned by the defendant contained a provision that plaintiff "shall be entitled to a broker's commission of five per cent. in the event the deed is delivered in accordance with the terms of this agreement, to be paid by" defendant, and also contained a statement signed by the plaintiff that "he agrees that there will be no commission due to him unless the deed is delivered in accordance with the terms of this agreement"; and it appeared that the written agreement signed by the respective purchasers and by the plaintiff was delivered to the defendant with a deposit money check but was not signed by the defendant; that thereafter on November 18, 1953 the plaintiff delivered to the defendant a letter signed by him which contained the statement "I will look entirely to the buyer for compensation and I cancel all responsibility inferred or real on the part of the" defendant; and four weeks thereafter the agreement of sale was signed by the defendant and settlement was subsequently made; and at the trial plaintiff testified that it was orally agreed between plaintiff and defendant that if the contract between defendant and the purchasers was not accepted by the defendant within five days after the letter was delivered on November 18, 1953, the letter waiving the commission would be of no effect and was to become null and void, it was Held that such oral testimony was a violation of the parol evidence rule which was applicable and that the court below had properly entered judgment n.o.v. for the defendant.
OPINION PER CURIAM, November 11, 1957:
This case is affirmed on the able and comprehensive opinion of Judge HENRY X. O'BRIEN, writing for the court below, as reported in 9 Pa. D. C.2d 623.