Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olson v. Penkert, 90 N.W.2d 193.

60 citing documents.

Lake West Development LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(explaining that mutual consent operates as a substitution).
Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“Parties can alter their contract by mutual consent, and this requires no new consideration, for it is merely the substitution of a new contract for the old one, and this is of itself a sufficient consideration for the new.” (quotation omitted)).
Talon Bren Road, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although we are doubtful as to whether the November 2015 letter or any of the deficit-payment notices meet the requirements for modifying a contract, see Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 344, 347 –48, we need not reach a definitive holding on the question because Bren Road’s argument collapses on its own logic.
In re: the Estate of Sherwood Thomas Perl, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, a real estate broker earns a commi ssion under a listing agreement by producing a purchaser “ready, willing, and able to purchase at the price and on the terms fixed by the seller.” Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 34 2
K&S Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
that ‘Parties can alter their contract by mutual consent, and this requires no new consideration, for it is merely the substitution of a new contract for the old one, and this is of itself a sufficient consideration for the new.” Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 347, (citing Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567, 282 N.W.
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 342
Warrick v. Graffiti, Inc. 550 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Warrick v. Graffiti, Inc. 550 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 347 , (quoting Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 540 , 42 N.W.
Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc. 524 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc. 524 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
“This rule, of necessity, depends on the agreement of the parties.” Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 342
Badger Equipment Co. v. Brennan 431 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Badger Equipment Co. v. Brennan 431 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held: Parties can alter their contract by mutual consent, and this requires no new consideration, for it is merely the substitution of a new contract for the old one, and this is of itself a sufficient consideration for the new.
Stromberg v. Smith 423 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Stromberg v. Smith 423 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Cf. Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 346 , (the broker’s good faith in acting as the owner’s agent was a question for the jury’s determination).
Commonwealth Capital Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. 400 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Commonwealth Capital Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. 400 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 342 , Schramsky v. Hollmichel, 233 Minn. 481, 484
Century 21-Birdsell Realty, Inc. v. Hiebel 379 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Century 21-Birdsell Realty, Inc. v. Hiebel 379 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 343 , This rule is based on the principle that “no one can avail himself of the nonperformance of a condition precedent who has himself occasioned its nonperformance.” Id.
Real Estate Dynamics, Inc. v. Genzler 369 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Real Estate Dynamics, Inc. v. Genzler 369 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Mayberry v. Davis, 288 Minn. 73 , Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334
Bond v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1985
Bond v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1985
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 347
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 347
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 350 , Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 433 , Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Williams, 128 Minn. 514, 515-16 , 151 N.W.
White v. Boucher 322 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1982
White v. Boucher 322 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1982
See Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334
G & R Investment Corp. v. Cheney 269 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1978
G & R Investment Corp. v. Cheney 269 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1978
As we stated in Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 343, 344 , 201 (1958): “We think the rule well established that, if the efforts of the broker are rendered a failure by the fault of the employer, the broker does not lose his commission.
Klawitter v. Straumann 255 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1977
McDonald v. Stonebraker 255 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1977
Klawitter v. Straumann 255 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1977
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334
McDonald v. Stonebraker 255 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1977
See, also, Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334 , 3A Dunnell, Dig.
Greer v. Kooiker 253 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1977
Greer v. Kooiker 253 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1977
See, Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334
Klawitter v. Billick 242 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1976
Klawitter v. Billick 242 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1976
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 341
Jansen v. Herman 230 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1975
Jansen v. Herman 230 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1975
In Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 343 , , 200 (1958), we stated: “We think the rule well established that, if the efforts of the broker *577 are rendered a failure by the fault of the employer, the broker does not lose his commission.
Development Services, Inc. v. Sheehan 189 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1971
Development Services, Inc. v. Sheehan 189 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1971
This court has stated in Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 343 , 90 N. W. (2d) 193 , 200: “We think the rule well established that, if the efforts of the *386 broker are rendered a failure by the fault of the employer, the broker does not lose his commission.
LeTourneau v. Krook 186 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1971
LeTourneau v. Krook 186 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1971
McDonough v. Newmans Cloak & Suit Co. 247 Minn. 250 , 77 N. W. (2d) 59 , 61 A. L. R. (2d) 100; Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334 , 90 N. W. (2d) 193 .
Mayberry v. Davis 178 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1970
Mayberry v. Davis 178 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1970
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 344 , 90 N. W. (2d) 193, 201 .
Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
t’s charge to the jury becomes the law of the case and is not subject to attack or review on appeal when such fundamental errors have not been seasonably and adequately called to the attention of the trial court by appropriate objection or exception, or have not, as a minimum requirement, been assigned for the first time as errors in a motion for a new trial.” This court held in Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334 , 90 N. W. (2d) 193 , that if no objection is made at trial to an error in the instruc
Daigle v. Twin City Ready Mix Concrete Co. 128 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1964