Final answer:
The most likely outcome is that the owner is not forced to sell but is liable for the broker commission. The broker fulfilled their contract by finding a qualified buyer, entitling them to a commission despite the seller's change of mind. Other options are less likely as there may not be grounds for specific performance or relevance to the Fair Housing Act. The correct option is B.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a broker with a valid exclusive right-to-sell listing procures a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the property for the full asking price, but the seller refuses to sell, the most likely outcome would be B. The owner is not forced to sell but is liable for the broker commission.
In this situation, the broker has fulfilled their end of the contractual agreement by bringing a qualified buyer, thus earning the commission. The seller does not have to sell the property if they change their mind, but they might still owe the commission to the broker due to the terms of the exclusive right-to-sell agreement.
Incorrect option A suggests that the buyer can sue for specific performance. This means that the buyer would ask the court to force the sale of the property as per the agreement. However, unless there is a fully executed purchase agreement, the buyer typically cannot enforce such a remedy.
Option C, mentioning the Fair Housing Act, is not relevant to the issue at hand since the Fair Housing Act addresses discrimination, not contract enforcement. Lastly, if earnest money was paid, it is usually returned to the buyer (option D) if the transaction doesn't move forward unless a breach of the purchase contract can be attributed to the buyer.