Klotz v. Fauber

4 Citing cases

  1. Funk v. Tifft

    515 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 20 times
    In Funk v. Tifft (9th Cir. 1975) 515 F.2d 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied Idaho law in a diversity action.

    There is no Idaho case in point. However, the courts in other states which have considered similar facts have concluded that a broker for the seller can, with the seller's knowledge, outbid prospective buyers, Ries v. Rome, 337 Mass. 376, 149 N.E.2d 366, 371 (1958); Klotz v. Fauber, 213 Va. 1, 189 S.E.2d 45 (1972); DiBurro v. Bonasia, 321 Mass. 12, 71 N.E.2d 401 (1947); cf. Fish v. Teninga, 330 Ill. 160, 161 N.E. 515 (1928); Jacoby v. Shell Oil Co., 196 F.2d 855 (7th Cir. 1952); Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 423 (1927). In Ries, supra, plaintiffs sued to impose a constructive trust on property purchased by an associate of the seller's agent.

  2. Nguyen v. Scott

    206 Cal.App.3d 725 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 22 times

    While it is not certain that the seller would have accepted appellants' offer, proof of a competitively superior offer is likely to be the strongest evidence available to a prospective purchaser in this situation. (See Klotz v. Fauber (1972) 213 Va. 1 [ 189 S.E.2d 45].) To require more would effectively deny relief.

  3. Allen v. Lindstrom

    237 Va. 489 (Va. 1989)   Cited 32 times
    Observing that "[t]he power of control is the determining factor in ascertaining the alleged agent's status"

    We decline the invitation. Sea Klotz v. Fauber, 213 Va. 1, 189 S.E.2d 45 (1972). In reaching our decision we draw on the analysis in Ayyildiz v. Kidd, 220 Va. 1080, 266 S.E.2d 108 (1980), also relied upon by the trial court.

  4. Stevens v. Jayhawk Realty Co.

    9 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 11 times

    12 C.J.S. Brokers § 104, p. 297.        See Harper v. Adametz, 142 Conn. 218, 113 A.2d 136 (1955); Klotz v. Fauber, 213 Va. 1, 189 S.E.2d 45 (1972).        A recent Kansas case found defendant realtor (seller's agent) liable to plaintiff purchaser in fraud for failing to disclose to plaintiff the presence of termites in the house plaintiff purchased.