Appellees contend that in the absence of a written listing contract the statute precludes appellant from collecting a commission under a theory of quantum meruit. This court has never had the opportunity to decide whether § 45-1945 precludes the enforcement of unwritten contracts to pay a real estate commission. We find the rationale in Cassidy & Pinkard, Inc. v. Jemal, 899 F.Supp. 5 (D.D.C.1995) instructive. As the court noted in Cassidy, the language of § 45-1945 does not address a party’s ability to collect a commission based on an unwrit ten contract. Id. at 7. The court looked to the District’s common law to determine when recovery of a commission under an oral listing contract was enforceable. Id. (citing Regional Redevelopment Corp. v. Hoke, 547 A.2d 1006, 1011 n. 5 (D.C.1988)) (<HOLDING>); see Apostolides v. Colecchia, 221 A.2d 437,
holding that the parol evidence rule did not bar introduction of evidence of a subsequent oral contract concerning the brokers right to a commission and modifying the written agreement holding that oral listing agreement did not preclude recovery of a commission holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding that sufficient evidence existed of an enforceable oral commission agreement between a broker and a cobroker and sustaining the verdict holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract