the descriptions were adequate to identify the properties between Callies and CBI. O’Neal clearly identified the properties at issue by providing Callies with descriptions and plats of the properties and testifying that he knew what properties were the subjects of the listing agreements. His counsel’s briefing before this Court confirmed his understanding of the identities of the subject properties. Callies also testified that both parties understood what properties were to be sold. Because the descriptions were sufficient to identify the properties between the broker and seller, extrinsic evidence could have been admitted to cure the defective descriptions. Thus, CBI’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. See Shields & Co., 100 Idaho at 882-83, 606 P.2d at 986-87 (<HOLDING>). Given our disposition of this issue, we need
holding that the quantity of drugs negotiated was properly attributed to the broker even though the seller ultimately could not supply the requested amount holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent holding that it was up to the jury to decide whether the broker and seller understood the property to be sold where the listing agreement erroneously indicated a property description was attached but the seller testified the broker knew what property was to be sold holding that the purchaser could bring a 93a claim against the real estate broker because the broker misinformed the plaintiff as to the acreage of the parcel and failed to disclose that the property was encumbered holding that the map a seller supplied to a broker at the time the brokerage contract was signed was intended by the parties to constitute the legal description in the brokerage contract