How have courts interpreted the doctrine of assuming that a broker or broker breached a client's agreement?

"THE COURT: Assume Never versus King [Never v. King (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 461, 81 Cal.Rptr. 161] teaches us that--assume that the going to another broker was a breach, assume that is true. And assume that as a result, that is a breach or repudiation of his agreement, the defendant's agreement with your client. That does not relieve your client of the burden of proving that he in fact has either performed or that the lender produced would perform so that he could show that he is entitled to the commission." (Italics added.)