The Ash Park estate. The facts in Ash Park LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd. were not in dispute. Ash Park LLC has entered into a standard listing agreement (WB-3 Vacant Land Listing Contract) with a broker, Re/Max Select LLC. The contract provided that Ash Park would pay a commission to Re/Max if Ash Park „accepted an offer establishing a binding contract for the sale” of the property. In other words, the registration contract required a commission even without a sale concluded. Subsequently, Ash Park entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of the property with Alexander & Bishop, Ltd, but the closure never took place. Ash Park sued Alexander & Bishop and got a specific performance judgment. However, despite the decision against her, Alexander & Bishop never paid for or acquired the property.
Re/Max intervened in the trial before the final decision and requested its commission as well as interest, costs and attorneys` fees before the conviction. Principles and guidelines. The Supreme Court rejected Ash Park`s two counter-arguments. First, the court held that Alexander & Bishop`s non-payment of the judgment had no bearing on whether the purchase agreement was enforceable or not: „The applicability of a contract depends on the availability of a remedy for a breach, not on compliance with a judgment rendered in response to a breach.” Second, the Court concluded that the request made to a seller to pay a commission even without a closed sale was not contrary to public policy. The court said: „The outcome of this case appears to be tough for Ash Park. But. Asking Ash Park to pay the commission is not only contrary to the wording of the contract; it`s also unfair to Re/Max who tried to find a buyer. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the purchase agreement was enforceable and that Re/Max was entitled to its commission on the registration contract, even though no sale had ever been concluded. The Supreme Court takes the balance.
After a lengthy litigation, the case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In court, the question was whether the purchase contract was an „enforceable contract” under the registration contract, which re/Max was therefore entitled to claim. Analyzing the simple meaning of the words, the court stated that an „enforceable contract” is a contract for which a party can go to court and get a remedy for a breach. As Ash Park had already rendered a judgment on the purchase contract, this contract was enforceable – or even enforced. From there, the court concluded that „the purchase agreement between Ash Park and Alexander & Bishop constitutes an `enforceable contract` within the meaning of the registration agreement between Ash Park and Re/Max.” (Emphasis added.) But not so fast. Enter the broker of the deal and argue that Ash Park and Alexander & Bishop had a „binding contract” due to ordering a particular service, which would entitle them to a 6% commission under their listing agreement with Ash Park, or $378,000 (or 6% of $6.3 million). .