Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Turner v. Guy

Massachusetts Court of Appeals
311 N.E.2d 921 (1974)


Facts

Telly Turner (plaintiff) was the owner of three pieces of rental property. Nathanial Guy (defendant) was a real estate agent. Turner approached Guy and told him that she wanted to sell the three properties as quickly as she could. Guy told Turner that the properties were likely worth five times their rental income, or about $17,500. Turner and Guy then entered into a written real-estate-agency contract under which Guy promised to look for a buyer at $17,500, and Turner promised to pay Guy a six percent sales commission. After Guy looked at the properties, however, he offered to buy them for $16,000. Turner and Guy entered into a contract under which Guy paid Turner $500 to secure his right to purchase the properties for $16,000 at a set future time. Before that time arrived, however, Turner learned new information: four years earlier, an inheritance-tax appraisal had valued the properties at $25,000. Then Turner hired an attorney and had the properties appraised. That appraisal came in at $29,500. At that point, Turner’s attorney talked to Guy and proposed returning the $500 in exchange for Guy releasing Turner from the agreement. Guy refused and threatened to sue if Turner did not go through with the sale. Accordingly, Turner sold the properties to Guy for $16,000. Guy then brought the properties up to code and listed them for sale at $33,000. Turner sued Guy in equity, seeking rescission of the sales contract. The trial court ruled that Guy had breached the fiduciary duty he owed Turner as her real estate agent. The court also ruled, however, that Turner’s suit was too late and barred by laches because Guy had already renovated the properties believing that Turner was not going to challenge his ownership. Consequently, the court dismissed Turner’s case. Turner appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Hale, C.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, please start your free trial or log in.

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 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.