The court correctly held that the plaintiff could not obtain compensation for the provision of real estate agent services to the defendants because the complainant was not a licensed broker. (section 11136 [brokerage license required to collect compensation for brokerage services].) Decisions such as Lindenstadt [Citation] justify, however, that the Tribunal erred in refusing to compensate the applicant insofar as the applicant`s services were not those of a real estate agent. In Lindenstadt, the parties entered into 25 to 30 written agreements in which the complainant promised to assist the defendant in finding business for a possible acquisition. After the applicant found a number of such cases, the defendant refused to compensate the applicant. The defendant relied on the applicant`s provision, which provided services provided by the unlicensed broker, as justification for his refusal to pay. In the course of the appeal process, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant`s general assertion that the applicant`s unauthorized services had the effect, for certain business opportunities, of not allowing the applicant to obtain compensation for a business opportunity. On the contrary, the Court of Appeal asked the Court of Appeal to consider individually each business opportunity to determine whether the applicant had acted as an unauthorized broker for that transaction or whether he was instead providing only services for which he did not require a brokerage licence. In short, the unloaded clauses are correct if they are reasonable. In short, discharge clauses generally become valid when (1) the agreement does not apply to a company that is generally suitable for public regulation (for example, a 20-kilometre cycling race is probably not generally suitable for public regulation while a bus line is); 2. The party aspiring to the discharge must not, for some citizens, engage in an activity of great necessity or practical necessity; (3) the party does not claim to provide the service only to someone who comes (unlike the bus line); (4) the parties act on the length of the weapons, able to negotiate the treaty; 5. the buyer`s person or property is not under the control of the seller, subject to the negligence of his representative; or (6) the clause is striking and clear.
Henrioulle v. Marin Ventures, Inc., 573 p.2d 465 (Calif. 1978). The defendants terminated the contract in January 2005. Two months earlier, the accused had signed a [financing contract] with the Talisker Group.