to achieve an 'equitable' result."); Utah Farm Bur. Ins. Co. v. Crook, 1999 UT 47,¶ 6, 980 P.2d 685 (stating courts "may not rewrite [a] contract ... 60 N.W.2d 196, 200-01 (1977) (contract providing commission was "due and payable ... at the time of loan closing," did not condition the broker's commission on the actual loan closing); Samuel R. Laden, Inc. v. Lidgerwood Estates, Inc., 15 N.J. Misc. 498, 192 A. 425, 428 (1937) ("In order to absolve a party from the payment of commissions, it must clearly appear by the contract with his broker that the payment of commissions was made contingent upon the actual transfer of title.") (Internal quotations and citation omitted.). But see Arvida Realty Sales, Inc. v. William R. Tinnerman & Co., 536 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>); Doss v. Moses & Sloan P'ship, C.A. No.
holding that the real estate brokers law which provided for the investigation of the acts of real estate brokers and the suspension or revocation of their licenses for specified acts is penal and must be strictly construed holding that when neither real estate brokers licensing statute nor its legislative history indicated that legislature intended unenforeeability of unlicensed brokers commission agreement broker was entitled to retain commission paid holding that contract providing commission was to be paid within 72 hours of closing did not condition the payment of commission on the closing holding brokers were not entitled to commission where agreement provided commission was payable at closing of real estate transaction because brokers did not produce clients that closed holding that a real estate brokers allegations of an oral contract with prospective purchasers stated a cause of action