History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pauline v. Borer
253 So. 2d 719
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1971
Check Treatment
MANN, Judge.

Pauline, as listing broker, was advised by a saleslady for another broker in a multiple listing system that their customer was willing to pay $32,000, or, if necessary, $33,000, for the property of Mr. and Mrs. Staples. Pauline’s saleslady had procured an offer of $30,000 and talked with Staples on the telephone. Pauline picked up the phone and talked with Staples but did not advise him of the higher offer although he knew of it. Staples sent a telegraphed acceptance of the $30,000 offer. These findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and support the suspension of *720Pauline’s license for one year. Pauline had a duty to disclose the higher offer. See Singer v. M. Grant Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 52; Anno., 7 A.L.R.3d 693.

Certiorari denied.

PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Pauline v. Borer
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Jun 18, 1971
Citation: 253 So. 2d 719
Docket Number: No. 71-101
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.