The opinion
STEPHENSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would allow Edgar Jackson to recover his percentage of the commission.
I think it is significant that the trial court found that only Jean Baldwin had received the instruction from Marjorie Williams not to return the earnest money without first obtaining a written appraisal. Marjorie Williams had testified she also gave that instruction to Edgar Jackson, but the trial court failed to make such a finding. All witnesses, other than Marjorie Williams, had testified that no such instruction was given.
The only legal basis for denying recovery in the majority opinion is that an agent is entitled to no compensation for conduct which is disobedient if such conduct constitutes a willful and deliberate breach of the contract. There is no finding in this case that Edgar Jackson was guilty of disobedience which was willful or deliberate.
The majority opinion makes no such contention, but denies recovery by Edgar Jackson because of Article 6573a, § 3.1. A careful reading of such article clearly indicates to me that it is intended to make a real estate broker responsible for the acts of his agents, which law has no application to the factual situation before us.
The trial court apparently attempted to bind Edgar Jackson by the notice to Jean Baldwin on the theory of “joint venture.” The relationship between two real estate brokers in a multiple-listing situation completely fails to qualify in many aspects to be a “joint venture.”