In a case such as this, where the express language reveals that the broker is to receive its commission only if certain conditions are met, such conditions govern. See Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692 (1961); Hodgin v. Palmer, 72 Colo. 331, 211 P. 373 (1922). [4] Given this construction of the contract the only remaining question was whether the defendant showed by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction met the sales price requirement.

Reference must be made to the terms of each particular listing agreement in order to determine whether the broker's duties have been performed. Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692 (1961). [3-5] An offer to purchase real estate often differs from the terms of the listing agreement in some respect or adds terms regarding matters not addressed in the listing.

Their argument, of course, is that the option expired unexercised and that the eventual sale resulted solely from their own efforts. For this reason, the defendants contend, Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692, is dispositive of this claim for a commission. In Scott, supra, the property owners entered into a listing contract with the broker providing that, if the broker would secure one White as an optionee to purchase a lease upon specified terms and if White exercised that option, then the owners would pay the broker a commission.

The Agency's right to receive the brokerage commission, under these circumstances, depends upon the terms of the listing agreement and the duties actually performed by the broker. Consolidated Oil Gas, Inc. v. Roberts, 162 Colo. 149, 425 P.2d 282; Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692. Terms of the listing agreement set forth above conditioned the broker's right to recover the ten per cent commission upon the Agency's procurement of a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy the ranch at the stated price and terms, or as otherwise subsequently established by Watson. The record fully supports the trial court's finding that the Agency performed all conditions precedent to Watson's duty to pay the ten per cent commission.

We discussed the rights of a so-called "finder" in George v. Dower, 125 Colo. 45, 55, 62, 240 P.2d 897 (1952) to the effect that he who is entitled to the commission is the one who sets the chain of events in motion which result in the sale. [9-11] The law is that the right of a broker to recover a commission is dependent upon the terms of the agreement and the performance expected of him. Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 227, 365 P.2d 692 (1961). The measure of performance of an oil and gas broker or finder would seem to require only that he present a property available for acquisition and then procure any requested information needed to evaluate the property.

If we assume, without deciding, that plaintiffs' production of a seller here operated, by the conduct of the parties, to create an agency relationship, see Guy Martin Buick, Inc. v. Colorado Springs National Bank, 184 Colo. 166, 519 P.2d 354 (1974), that relationship, however characterized, is nevertheless governed by the terms of plaintiffs' employment in the transaction. See Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692 (1961). A proper resolution of this case thus turns on what the parties agreed plaintiffs' compensation would be.

They take the position that the agreements of March 1981 expressly provide that plaintiffs were to receive commissions if and only if the 100 percent sale contemplated therein occurred. Citing Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692 (1961), they argue that each plaintiff's right to a commission depends entirely upon the terms of that agreement as a contract of the brokers' employment and that plaintiffs therefore have no right to any commission because (1) the 100 percent deal fell through and (2) the two separate and unrelated transactions by which the property was subsequently sold to the Edlers embodied entirely new terms. We do not agree.

However, the rule is inapplicable here, since the prior receipt and option contract had expired without consummation of a sale and since further negotiations occurred between the seller and purchaser which resulted in a transaction not included within the terms of the listing contract. Cf. Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692 (1961). The trial court found, on supporting evidence, that no further action with respect to the sale of the subject property was taken by or on behalf of the broker after the expiration of the initial receipt and option contract.

[2] Where the express language of the contract or surrounding circumstances reveals that a broker is to receive his commission only if certain conditions are met, such conditions will be given effect though the broker is denied a commission. See Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692; Hodgin Sharman v. Palmer, 72 Colo. 331, 211 P. 373. While plaintiff did produce evidence extrinsic to the record itself, which could have supported a finding that the $1,500,000 sales price requirement had been waived as a condition precedent to receiving a commission, this evidence did not as a matter of law compel a finding to that effect, and the evidence justified the court's conclusion that the conditions of the contract had not been met. If reasonable men could differ in the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence as it stood at the close of the plaintiff's case, then we cannot interfere with the findings and conclusions of the trial court.

Horton-Cavey's right to recover a commission is dependent on the terms of the listing agreement. Scott v. Huntzinger, 148 Colo. 225, 365 P.2d 692. In regard to the 180-day period, the agreement does not condition the payment of the commission on the broker having been the procuring cause of the sale; hence, plaintiff need not show that it was the procuring cause in order to recover a commission here.