30 Pa. Super. 38 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1906
Opinion by
The plaintiff is a salesman for a firm of wholesale liquor dealers, and was promised by the defendants, who are licensed retail liquor dealers, that they would pay him #1,000 if he
The defense was that the modification of the terms as proposed by Kei'nan, and the impossibility of knowing what action the license court would take if the defendants had proceeded to test it with an application for a transfer of the license^ made them liable for no more than nominal damages. The court submitted the case to the jury on the theory that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole of the commission as such, or none, saying in substance: “ If the defendants called off the deal after the plaintiff secured a purchaser, without ascertaining whether the license court would transfer the license or not, the subsequent calling off the deal would not affect his right, or relieve themselves- of their liability to him.”
The agreement was entered into with the knowledge that its subject-matter did not have any market value-, and with the understanding that its consummation depended upon a condition over which neither party had any control, nor in regard to which they could make a valid contract. The defendants were not bound to accept any purchaser who might be proffered by the plaintiff, and had a right to withdraw from the contract subject to their liability to him. If they withdrew for a good reason, as explained in Cronin v. Sharp, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 76, they would be liable for nominal damages only. However, if they did not act in good faith and withdrew from the trans
This view of the subject sustains the objections to the answers to the defendants’ points, as embraced in the second, third and fifth assignments of error.
The judgment is reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.
Rice, P. J., dissents.