case being treated differently from those in which the broker has procured the buyer is that unlike in the latter situation, the seller is not taking the benefit of the broker’s actions. “[T]he contract bound [the seller] to pay the commission if he sold the property during the period of the agency, but did not bind him to make a sale during said period unless a buyer was found by [the broker]. The utmost of his obligation to [the broker] was to allow it to find a purchaser while its agency continued, and thereby earn a commission, or to pay [the broker] a commission not earned by it in the event defendant found a buyer and sold during the period. [The seller] would have been within his rights in refusing to sell until the expiration of the agency.” Mercantile Trust Co., 128 S.W at 23 (<HOLDING>). Lewis and Henry S. Grinde Corp. precluded
holding that so long as the seller did not have an agreement with the buyer during the term of the listing agreement it was free to delay selling until after the listing agreement had expired even where the delay was for the purpose of escaping the payment of a commission holding that even though an agreement was approved by the family court it retained its character as an agreement for purposes of legal analysis holding that an agreement on the one side to sell and on the other to buy does not constitute a conspiracy even if the buyer intends to resell the drugs so long as the buyer and seller do not have an agreement to further distribute the drugs holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant