Watts v. Hogan
In Watts v. Hogan, 111 Ariz. 536, 534 P.2d 741 (1975), a real estate broker filed an action seeking to recover a real estate commission. 111 Ariz. at 537, 534 P.2d at 742.
The broker had "obtained a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to purchase real property in which the appellees had an interest." Id.
Although the appellees had "discussed the possibility of selling a parcel of land," and the appellees, the broker, and the buyer had signed a purchase contract, the appellees argued that "a binding contract never existed because of the failure of a condition precedent." Id.
Specifically, the appellees claimed that they had an oral agreement with the broker that the approval of "all of the owners of the property was required before the contract became effective." Id.
The Court held that an agreement "subject to the consent of an additional party . . . must be viewed as conditional and if the consent is not given, the agreement is not binding." Id. at 538, 534 P.2d at 743.