Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Baker v. Dennis Brown Realty, Inc.

New Hampshire Supreme Court
433 A.2d 1271 (1981)


Facts

Sharon Baker (plaintiff) enlisted the services of Jody Keeler, a real estate agent, to find a home to purchase in Concord, New Hampshire. After Keeler found a home owned by Sarah Landry to show to Baker, she contacted Dennis Brown Realty (Brown Realty) (defendant), the exclusive listing agent for the property. Immediately after seeing the property shown by Keeler and one of Brown Realty’s agents, Faye Olson, Baker decided to purchase it and offered to pay $26,900—the full asking price. The two agents immediately drafted an unconditional purchase and sale agreement which Baker signed. Shortly thereafter, another agent for Brown Realty, Douglas Bush, arrived at the house and insisted that two provisions be included in the already signed contract, (1) bank financing and (2) sale of Baker’s house. Baker acquiesced to Bush’s demands after initially arguing that inclusion of the provisions was not necessary since Baker had already secured bank financing. Subsequently, Bush showed the home to the Piars family who, after viewing the property, offered to purchase it for $300 more than what Baker had offered. Bush then prepared a purchase and sale agreement for the Piars to sign without including a provision relating to sale of the Piars’ home. Both offers were then communicated to Landry without any notification to Baker of Piars’ offer, which Landry accepted. Because the Piars had dealt exclusively with Brown Realty, the entire sales commission went to it and Bush received 35 percent of the commission. Baker brought suit against Brown Realty for intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship. The trial court found for Baker and awarded damages of $3,525.29. Brown Realty appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Brock, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.