The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The parties submitted motions for summary judgment based on an exchange of letters which the appellant contends constituted a contract engaging him as a broker at 5% commission to find a tenant for appellee’s store property. We think it is clear that the correspondence amounted only to preliminary negotiations that did not ripen into a contract. This follows from the fact that appellant would be entitled to a commission only if he found a lessee who was ready, able and willing to execute a lease upon terms prescribed by appellee. The terms of such a lease were never agreed upon.