[Anonymous]

I was studying contracts today and reading the Ninja notes when I noticed this question:

West, an Indiana real estate broker, misrepresented to Zimmer that West was licensed in Kansas under the Kansas statute that regulates real estate brokers and requires all brokers to be licensed. Zimmer signed a contract agreeing to pay West a 5% commission for selling Zimmer’s home in Kansas. West did not sign the contract. West sold Zimmer’s home. If West sued Zimmer for nonpayment of commission, Zimmer would be:

a. Liable to West for the full commission.

b. Not liable to West for any amount because West did not sign the contract.

c. Not liable to West for any amount because West violated the Kansas licensing requirements.

d. Liable to West only for the value of services rendered.

Becker says the answer is C, and the Ninja notes says the answer is B. From my understanding, both parties do not have to sign the contract for it to be enforceable, so is there a mistake in the Ninja notes or am I missing something? Thanks!

[mw798]

C is the answer.

[Anonymous]

Jeff has acknowledged the mistake not sure why it hasn't been corrected. Answer is C

[Anonymous]

Thanks for clarifying!! I actually printed an older version of the book so the updated version might have the change–I haven't checked yet.

[Author]

Replies