You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Associated Executive Control, Inc. v. Bankers Union Life Insurance Co.

Citations: 452 So. 2d 780; 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8996Docket: No. 12912

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 11, 1984; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Associated Executive Control, Inc. (A.E.C.) brought a lawsuit against Bankers Union Life Insurance Company to recover a $50,000 finder's fee under an agreement related to the sale of stock in Security Guaranty Life Insurance Company. The pivotal issue was whether A.E.C. was entitled to the fee despite the sale's failure, which A.E.C. claimed was due to Bankers' actions. The trial court found in favor of A.E.C., concluding that Bankers' demand for the buyer to repudiate A.E.C.'s involvement was the primary reason the transaction did not close. The decision relied heavily on the testimony of the potential buyer, who stated that a specific clause in the contract prompted his withdrawal. Bankers appealed, challenging the determination of causation. The appellate court upheld the trial court's ruling, affirming that the clause was the decisive factor in the transaction's collapse. Consequently, A.E.C. was awarded the fee, with an offset of $12,338.89 granted to Bankers. Judge Lobrano dissented, signaling disagreement with the majority's conclusion.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeals on Factual Determination

Application: Bankers Union challenged the trial court's factual finding regarding the cause of the transaction's failure, but the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision based on evidence presented.

Reasoning: The appeal focused solely on whether the trial court erred in its determination regarding the cause of the failed transaction.

Causation in Contractual Breaches

Application: The trial court determined that the inclusion of a specific clause was the sole cause for the failure of the stock sale transaction, which was pivotal in awarding the fee to A.E.C.

Reasoning: The trial court relied heavily on Smith's testimony, determining that the clause was the sole reason for the transaction's failure.

Finders' Fee Agreements and Performance Conditions

Application: The court analyzed whether A.E.C. performed its obligations under the finder's fee agreement despite the transaction not being completed, concluding that A.E.C. was entitled to the fee as Bankers' actions caused the sale to fail.

Reasoning: The trial court ruled in favor of A.E.C., concluding that Bankers' demand for repudiation was indeed the sole cause of the transaction's failure.

Judicial Reliance on Witness Testimony

Application: The court placed significant weight on the testimony of the potential buyer in assessing the causation of the transaction's failure.

Reasoning: Testimony from Smith indicated that he would have proceeded with the purchase had it not been for this clause.