Plaintiffs Hoyt sued defendant Wasatch Plomes, real estate brokers, for $1,000 which defendant had kept as a commission for arranging a sale of property owned by plaintiffs; defendant answered that it had earned the money and counterclaimed for an additional $300, alleging that the total commission due it for services rendered was $1,300. Judgment below was for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
Defendant does not contend that the sale was actually consummated, but asserts that because it found a ready, willing and able buyer the commission was fully *11earned and that the trial court erred in refusing to so find and grant judgment on its counterclaim.
About April 25, 1951, the Hoyts entered into an agreement giving Defendant Wasatch Homes, Inc. authority to sell certain lots owned by Hoyts in a proposed subdivision to be known as “Indian Rocks” and by which Hoyts were to pay a commission if, as the trial court found, a sale Was consummated.
Thereafter, defendant [Wasatch] procured as prospective buyers, a Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Johnson, who made a down payment of $1,000 to defendant and signed the usual printed form Earnest Money Receipt and Agreement, which recited, inter alia, the purchase price as $26,000: $1,000 paid in cash, $6,000 to be paid within 60 days, after acceptance, not giving detail as to payment of the $19,000 balance, but reciting that the “terms and conditions * * * subject to adjustment agreeable to both parties.” It also required plaintiffs [Hoyts] to “provide engineers’ plats and obtain annex [sic] * * * [of the subdivision] to city * * *” and further provided that “the seller agrees, in con-sideration of the efforts of the * * * [broker Wasatch] in procuring a purchaser, to pay the said * * * [broker] the rate of commission recommended by the Salt Lake Real Estate Board.” This rate is 5% and upon $26,000 amounts to the $1,300 claimed by defendant. The plaintiffs Hoyt accepted the offer contained in the agreement and' signed it; it was likewise approved and signed for defendant by its-agent, Anderson.
Mr. Anderson continued to work on the transaction. He met with the engineer; several times and made three or four trips from Salt Lake City to Ogden in helping to make arrangements for the annexation of the subdivision to Salt Lake City. Subsequently, Mr. Hoyt informed him that'a Mr. Mark Eggertson of .an abstract and title insurance firm was helping the parties • work out details and that Mr. Anderson’s., help would not be needed further. Consequently the latter did nothing more about completing the deal.
After further negotiations, the parties did come to agreement as to the terms and time of payment of the $19,000 balance and the security to be furnished by the purchasers (Johnsons). These particulars were set down in a memorandum made by Mr. Eggertson during a conference of the parties in his office. It was not signed, however, and no formal contract was prepared.
For this reason plaintiffs seek refuge in the fact that no sale was consummated and maintain that defendant was there • fore not entitled to its commission. Superficially this may appear to be a simple and easy solution to the dispute. But defendant charges that, after engaging its services and permitting it to develop the deal,. which both parties accepted and signed the earnest money receipt on, Hoyt suf*12fered a change of mind and wilfully refused to cooperate; in fact “bought off” the Johnsons who were ready, willing and able purchasers, by paying them $1,000. Defendant avers that to permit Hoyt to recover the $1,000 from it under those circumstances and cheat them out of their commission would be wholly unconscionable.
Consideration of this charge necessitates a further survey of Hoyts’ activities and the factual situation. In regard to it we are obliged to take the evidence and all fair inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to plaintiffs because they prevailed in the lower court.
The plaintiff Richard R. Hoyt himself admitted that the terms contained in the Eggertson memorandum were acceptable to him. When questioned at the trial concerning what additional details he claimed were not worked out, he referred to only two matters. These were: (1) That he was to inspect some property in Montana which the Johnsons had offered as collateral and (2) That the Johnsons were to post a bond guaranteeing the City that certain improvements would be taken care of. The significance of these will be later referred to, and as will be seen, there was no disagreement concerning either of them, it was just a matter of getting them done.
Activities looking toward the creation of the subdivision and annexation to the City, the particulars of which are immaterial, took ' place during the summer and fall of 1951. It is important to note that there is no evidence that either party pressed for any hurry in completing the transaction during that time, and particularly that Hoyt made no complaint of delay on Johnson’s part. Meanwhile, the Hoyts had arranged to sell another block of lots in the subdivision to a Mr. John Glauser. According to the evidence, thereafter the attitudes of both Hoyt and Glauser were against the Johnsons remaining in the set-up. The testimony of Mrs. Johnson indicates that they wanted the Johnsons out; Hoyt expressly told her that he was sorry he had sold to them. This statement but reflects what an analysis of his actions hereinafter recited renders unmistakably clear: That he did not want to go through with the sale of the property to Johnsons as he had agreed.
The Earnest Money Agreement was obviously preliminary, and although it did provide that an additional $6,000 was to be paid within 60 days, the only reasonable deduction to be made from the facts shown is that this money was not to be paid until the formal written contract was entered into. Notwithstanding this, soon after Hoyt succeeded in getting the subdivision annexed to the City, but before any final contract had been submitted to the John-sons, Hoyt served a notice on them reciting that because they had failed to pay the $6,000 within sixty days and to agree to terms and conditions of the proposed sale, that “unless you pay * * * the full *13sum of $25,000 * * * and assume full responsibility, and arrange for the installation of sidewalks, street paving, curb and gutter and sewer * * * and furnish the necessary bond * * * for such improvements within five days, * * * ” the sellers would consider the agreement cancelled and terminated.
Upon receipt of the above notice, the Johnsons tendered the $6,000 which Hoyt refused to accept, informing them that there was no contract and that the deal was not going through. It is to be remembered that the notice just referred to was the first demand made by Hoyt indicating any dissatisfaction with the way the deal was proceeding, and further that there existed no point of difficulty of any importance between Hoyt and the purchasers (Johnsons). The only further grounds specified by Hoyt in justification for his refusal to go through with the deal are the two matters mentioned above concerning the inspection of property offered as security and the posting of an improvement bond. The fact with reference to the Johnsons’ Montana property, which they offered as security, is that other evidence shows it was worth about $40,000 and further, that the Johnsons were also offering a duplex in Salt Lake. There is no indication in the record that Hoyt ever voiced any dissatisfaction with the security arrangements except his own failure to inspect the Montana property. Plainly this dereliction on his own part is-of no avail to him in refusing to go forward with the contract.
The parties were in accord about John-sons’ duty to furnish the bond; they knew they were to1 furnish it, and in fact the subdivision would not have been valuable to Johnsons until the bond had been furnished and annexation to the City accomplished. It is true that some evidence indicates that they made one attempt to get a bond from a bonding company without success. But the Johnsons both testified that they had made arrangements for another bond; this was not disputed; nor did Hoyt show that any demand concerning it had been made or remained uncomplied with except the five-day notice above quoted, which was coupled with unreasonable and arbitrary demands, including that $25,000 cash must be paid within five days, and this before any contract had been presented to them.
It is likewise not disputed that upon receipt of such notice from Hoyt, in addition to offering to pay the $6,000, Johnsons indicated their willingness and desire to meet the requirements of their contract. They testified that at that time they were willing and able to comply with its terms, and the evidence does not demonstrate otherwise. In spite of these facts, their offer met with a blanket rejection upon Hoyt’s part, with no suggestion of counter-offer or other' reasonable effort to complete the transaction. It was at this state of the proceedings that discussions were had which' re-*14suited in a mutual rescission agreement by which Johnsons released any claims they had in the property to Hoyt, for which he paid them the $1,000. Hoyt then brought this suit against the defendants to recoup such payment and the lower court allowed him to recover because the sale had not been consummated. It is the correctness of this ruling with which we are concerned.
Just prior to the rescission agreement, there were just two possible alternatives with respect to the rights of the parties under the Earnest Money Receipt and Agreement: Either (a) Hoyt had a right to rescind against Johnsons for their failure or inability to comply with its terms, or (b) Hoyt had no such right because Johnsons had complied, and were willing and able to complete the transaction.
Und'er alternative (a), if it had been Johnsons who had failed and refused to complete the transaction, Hoyt was authorized by the Agreement to retain and forfeit the $1,000 as “liquidated and agreed damages.” In such event, Wasatch may also have had some rights against John-sons for any wilful failure to complete the contract as required by the Earnest Money Agreement and may have had a right to retain the $1,000. This latter matter is not of moment here because, as has been hereinabove demonstrated, the evidence quite conclusively indicates that the other alternative was the true factual situation and was so regarded by the parties.
From the facts hereinabove delineated, it is plain to be seen that the grounds assigned by Hoyt as basis for refusal were but specious rather than real reasons. That he was aware that Johnsons had preserved their rights under the contract, were willing and able to complete the transaction, and that he was therefore not in a position to forfeit them out, is clearly manifest by the fact that he paid them $1,000 for the contract of rescission. If he had had any valid basis for refusing to go through with the deal, it is highly unlikely that he would have made this substantial payment for a relinquishment of their rights. It is hardly to be supposed that he did so out of mere generosity; and even if he did so it should have been of his own money and not an attempt to deprive defendant of it.
We are therefore impelled to the conclusion that the only reasonable interpretation of the facts and circumstances shown is alternative (b): That the Johnsons had not failed in their obligations so as to subject them to forfeiture, and were ready, willing and able buyers. Under such circumstances Hoyt could not, by refusal to cooperate, defeat the defendant’s right to its commission. And we say this advisedly, notwithstanding the finding of the trial court, that when Hoyt originally engaged the defendant to sell the property, it was agreed that the commission would be paid only if a sale were consummated.
That agreement certainly contemplated that the plaintiff would cooperate in good faith toward the accomplishment of the purpose for which he employed de*15fendant. He cannot be permitted to procure them to obtain a buyer, on terms accepted by the plaintiff, and then prevent the accomplishment of what he requested and authorized them to do by arbitrarily refusing to perform his part of the transaction. Under such circumstances, he will not be heard to complain of their failure to do that which he prevented.1
There is justification for defendant’s complaint of the unfairness of permitting the seller to accept the buyer produced by them, dismiss them out of the deal, and then without any notice to or consent of the broker, on his own initiative, negotiate a cancellation of the contract and try to deprive the broker of the commission on the sale which he had arranged. Under such circumstances, where there is a voluntary rescission, the broker is still entitled to his compensation. 2
Defendant advances another proposition supporting the claim to its commission: That the Earnest Money Receipt and Agreement, having been executed after the listing agreement, and after the Johnsons had been accepted as buyers, superseded the former agreement; and that it expressly binds plaintiffs to pay defendant their commission. It states:
“The seller agrees, in consideration of the efforts of the * * * [broker] in procuring a purchaser, to pay the said * * * [broker] the rate of commission recommended by the Salt Lake Real Estate Board.”
Defendant points out that under such an’ agreement all the broker is obligated to do is to produce a ready, willing and able buyer3 and that at plaintiff’s request it exerted “efforts * * * in producing a purchaser * * * ” before, at the time of, and after the plaintiffs signed the Earnest Money Agreement and contend that it follows as an elementary proposition that the plaintiff, having so agreed, must pay. Plaintiffs, however, counter that the prior listing contract calling for a consummated sale, stands independent of the Earnest Money Receipt and Agreement and is not necessarily inconsistent with it. In view of the language just quoted specifically covering the payment of commission for efforts of the broker in procuring a purchaser (not in consummating a sale) the writer is of the opinion that the defendant is correct in this contention also, and that for this additional reason judgment in favor of the defendant for its commission is mandatory. But due to the fact that it seems clear that judgment should be in favor of the defendant even if the rights of the parties are based upon the original agreement for a consummated *16sale, it is unnecessary to determine whether the two agreements could stand independent of one another. It is therefore deemed inexpedient to protract this opinion by detailed treatment of the latter problem.
. Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate judgment in favor of plaintiffs and enter judgment in favor of defendant on its counterclaim in accordance with this opinion. Costs to appellant.
HENRIOD and WADE, JJ., concur.. Lesser v. W. B. McGerry & Co., 121 Cal. App. 193, 8 P.2d 1058; Knowles v. Henderson, 156 Fla. 31, 22 So.2d 384, 169 A.L.R. 600; Sill v. Ceschi, 167 Cal. 698, 140 P. 949; see 169 A.L.R. 605.
. See Ogden Savings & Trust Co. v. Blakely, 66 Utah 229, 241 P. 221; see 12 C.J.S., Brokers, § 89, page 204.
. See Hornback v. Sabin Robbins Paper Co., 27 Ohio App. 329, 161 N.E. 213.