[Download] "Gregory v. Harrison" by Supreme Court of Kansas " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Gregory v. Harrison
- Author : Supreme Court of Kansas
- Release Date : January 08, 1963
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 52 KB
Description
The opinion of the court was delivered by Plaintiff-appellant filed a petition containing three causes of action, each based upon an oral contract made with the defendant-appellees. Each contract was for services performed by plaintiff as an architect. It was alleged that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants, Robert P. Harrison and Pauline Gill Harrison, were and still are partners doing business under the firm name of M.R. Gill Real Estate Agency, with their principal office in Lawrence, Kansas. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, and to which reference is herein made, the defendant, H.C. Murphree, was the duly appointed, qualified and acting agent of the said Robert P. Harrison and Pauline Gill Harrison, doing business as the M.R. Gill Real Agency, with full power to represent and bind them in relation to the making of the agreements set out and hereinafter mentioned. The first cause of action was based upon an oral contract made by H.C. Murphree as the agent of the M.R. Gill Real Estate Agency, in which it was alleged that Murphree on May 6, 1959, told plaintiff that the Real Estate Agency had the exclusive agency for Schwartz Acres No. 2, an addition to Lawrence, Kansas; that Murphree ordered from plaintiff five house plans with elevations and alternate elevations for each of the plans. Murphree represented to plaintiff that there were 52 lots in the addition, that it was proposed the Agency would sell a house for each of these 52 lots; that only people who would use one of the house plans would be allowed to purchase a lot; that they would sell the lots only to individuals and would not deal with other real estate agencies or contractors; that Murphree agreed to pay plaintiff $100 for each plan used and sold, and that the total compensation for plaintiff would amount to $5,200. That plaintiff furnished the plans and alternate elevations to the defendants, but that sometime after August 24, 1959, the defendants breached the oral contract by selling lots in the addition in violation of the terms set out in the oral contract. That because of this breach plaintiff has not been able to receive the compensation expected. That plaintiff has made demand on defendants for the money due under the oral contract; that only $300 of the sum due was paid to plaintiff