Doliner v. Brown
Appeals Court of Massachusetts
489 N.E.2d 1036 (1986)
- Written by Emily Houde, JD
Facts
Julius Doliner (plaintiff) wished to buy an apartment building to convert into condominiums. While searching for financing, Doliner met with Raymond Green and Richard Bendetson to discuss a second mortgage. Green and Bendetson then went to see Harold Brown (defendant), who was also involved in condominium conversions. Green and Bendetson told Brown about the details of Doliner’s plans, and Brown said that he would consider a 50 percent position in the second mortgage. Brown then began investigating the plan and decided to purchase the building himself. The owners sold the building to Brown for the same price tendered to Doliner. Doliner sued Brown for intentionally interfering with contractual relations. In trial court, the judge found that if not for Brown’s interference, Doliner would have been able to acquire financing and purchase the building. However, the judge also found that Brown, as a competitor in the same market as Doliner, was not restricted from pursuing the deal so long as Brown did not use unlawful means. The trial court found for Brown and determined that Brown did not commit the tort of intentional interference with Doliner’s contractual relations. Doliner appealed the trial court’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaplan, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
