Buckaloo v. Johnson
California Supreme Court
537 P.2d 865 (1975)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
William Buckaloo (plaintiff) was a licensed real estate broker. Buckaloo had the exclusive right to sell the house of Mildred Benioff (defendant) for two years, but the house did not sell within the given timeframe. After the expiration of the exclusivity term, Benioff placed a sign in her yard, stating “For Sale—Contact Your Local Broker.” Virginia Arness, Arness’s daughter, and real estate salesman Cecil Johnson (collectively, Arness) (defendants) entered Buckaloo’s office to inquire about real estate in the neighborhood. Arness had seen Benioff’s sign, and Buckaloo told her about the property based on his prior sales work. Arness showed interest in the property and left the office stating that she would be back. Arness did not return. Buckaloo later learned that Arness had purchased the property directly from Benioff, without Buckaloo’s involvement. Buckaloo sued Arness for intentional interference with contractual relations. The trial court granted Arness’s motion to dismiss. Buckaloo appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
