If a sale of land by the owner effects a breach of the contract with the agent, an action by the latter should be based on such breach, and not on a performance of the contract. Metzer v. Wyatt, 41 I11. App. 487; Alderson v. Houston, 96 P. 884, 154 Cal. 1.

Where a party under a contract is to secure for a second party options on certain properties, and the second party directs him not to proceed with reference to securing an option on one of the properties, this is a breach of the contract for which the second party is liable in damages. Worthington v. McGarry, 149 Ala. 251, 42 S. 988. A contract giving an agent the exclusive authority to find a purchaser for a farm within a given time, but not negativing the right of the principal to sell the property himself, is not breached by a sale by the owner at public auction, through the medium of an auctioneer acting under his immediate direction. Ingold v. Symonds, 134 Iowa, 206, I11 N. W. 802.

The broker's right to a commission is not affected by a subsequent breach by either party not caused through his fault. Parker v. Walker, 86 Tenn. 566, 8 S. W. 391; Hannon v. Moran, 71 Mich. 261, 38 N. W. 909; Tilton v. James S. Gate Sons Co., (Wis. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 331; Hayes v. McArs, 131 N. W. 535, 166 Mich. 198. Where the contract employing a broker to procure a purchaser stipulates that commissions should be paid only when a sale is effected, the broker is not entitled to commissions unless a sale is effected, though he may be entitled to damages for the wrongful act of the owner in preventing a sale. McDermott v. Mahoney (Iowa Sup. '08), 115 N. W. 32, 139 Iowa, 292; Boddy v. Brummett & Ellis (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 110 S. W. 532.

A real estate agent who has obtained a purchaser for property placed in his hands to be sold at a certain price, the surplus to go to the agent as his commission, can not recover for a breach of the owner's contract to convey the property a sum paid to the owner to induce him to comply with the contract, in addition to the commission he would have received had the sale been consummated. Cornell v. Hanna (Kan. App. '98), 53 P. 790.

Where plaintiff, desiring to purchase a certain tract of land, went to real estate agents, and they informed him they had a letter from the owner in which she offered the tract at $1,700, and that they would endeavor to procure it for him for $1,760, $100 to be paid down, and the balance to be paid as soon as the deed could be procured; but when the owner was informed of the transaction she refused to take less than $2,000; the real estate agents, having acted in good faith and done all in their power to procure the title of the land, were liable only for the return of the $100 paid, and not for damages for a breach of the contract. Kroeger v. Good, 13 Idaho, 184, 89 P. 632.

In action for damages for revocation of authority to sell land, nothing more than nominal damages can be recovered, where the agent fails to show that he could have made a sale on the principal's terms. Mulligan v. Owen, 123 Iowa, 285, 98 N. W. 792.

Where a firm of two members contracted to manage and sell lots of a corporation at a town other than that at which the partners resided, the fact that the business was carried on at the town where the lots are located by only one of the partners, was not a breach of the contract. Albany Land Co. v. Rickel, 162 Ind. 222, 70 N. E. 158. See also Sec. 630.

Where an owner who had granted to a real estate broker the exclusive agency for the sale of land for a specified period sold the timber, which was the most valuable part of the land and thereby practically prevented the sale of the land according to the terms of the contract, the broker could, without waiting for the expiration of the contract, sue for the breach. Hunter v. Wenatchee Land Co., 97 P. 494, 50 Wash. 438.

A broker, in an action for commissions, could not recover for damages for breach of his contract of employment without pleading such breach. Knudson & Richardson v. Laurent, 140 N. W. 392, 159 Iowa, 189.