Baker v. Dennis Brown Realty, Inc. case brief summary
433 A.2d 1271 (1981)
CASE FACTS
The potential purchaser made an offer on a home. The seller's agent, who would have split the commission with the prospective purchaser's agent, later showed the house to another couple, who offered a few hundred dollars more for it. Because they did not have an agent, the agent would receive the full commission if their offer was accepted. Without informing the potential purchaser of the latter offer, the agent presented both offers to the seller, who accepted the higher one. In challenging the judgment finding him liable for intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship, the agent claimed that N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 506:1, which prohibited actions relating to the sale of land unless there was a written contract, precluded recovery.
DISCUSSION
The court vacated a portion of the damages awarded to the potential purchaser but otherwise affirmed the judgment in her favor.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
433 A.2d 1271 (1981)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant real estate agent appealed a
judgment of the Concord District Court (New Hampshire), which, after
a jury trial, awarded damages to plaintiff potential purchaser on her
action for intentional interference with a prospective contractual
relationship.CASE FACTS
The potential purchaser made an offer on a home. The seller's agent, who would have split the commission with the prospective purchaser's agent, later showed the house to another couple, who offered a few hundred dollars more for it. Because they did not have an agent, the agent would receive the full commission if their offer was accepted. Without informing the potential purchaser of the latter offer, the agent presented both offers to the seller, who accepted the higher one. In challenging the judgment finding him liable for intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship, the agent claimed that N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 506:1, which prohibited actions relating to the sale of land unless there was a written contract, precluded recovery.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the judgment, finding § 506:1 inapplicable because it dealt with contracts, whereas a prospective interference with contractual relationship claim was a tort action.
- Because there was no trial record, the court refused to disturb the finding that the agent's actions were not privileged.
- However, the court found that some of the damages were speculative and thus vacated them.
The court vacated a portion of the damages awarded to the potential purchaser but otherwise affirmed the judgment in her favor.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment