Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortdefendantdamagesverdict
contracttortplaintiffdefendantdamagesverdict

Related Cases

Rocha v. Faltys, 69 S.W.3d 315
View Case »
Biesele v. Mattena, 449 P.3d 1, 2019 UT 30
View Case »
Smith v. Cutter Biological, Inc., a Div. of Miles Inc., 72 Haw. 416, 823 P.2d 717, 60 USLW 2399, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,056
View Case »
Ellis v. Newbrough, 6 N.M. 181, 6 Gild. 181, 27 P. 490, 1891 -NMSC- 028
View Case »
Continental Research, Inc. v. Cruttenden, Podesta & Miller, 222 F.Supp. 190
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sustick v. Slatina, 48 N.J.Super. 134, 137 A.2d 54

Facts

John A. Sustick, Jr., a licensed real estate broker, was engaged by Frank and Mary Slatina to find them a new home after selling their previous house. Sustick showed them several properties, including a house owned by Salvatore Marotta. After negotiations, the Slatinas expressed disinterest in the Marotta property and told Sustick to forget about it. Subsequently, they purchased the Marotta property directly, resulting in Sustick losing his commission. The jury found in favor of Sustick, awarding him damages for the tortious interference.

The plaintiff, John A. Sustick, Jr., a licensed real estate broker, instituted suit against Salvatore Marotta, the owner of real estate purchased from him by Frank Slatina and Mary Slatina, his wife, and against the Slatinas to recover damages for the tortious interference by defendants with his contractual relationship as a broker with Marotta, whereby he lost a commission which he would otherwise have earned on the sale of the property.

Issue

Did the Slatinas and Marotta intentionally interfere with Sustick's contractual relationship, causing him to lose his commission?

Did the Slatinas and Marotta intentionally interfere with Sustick's contractual relationship, causing him to lose his commission?

Rule

The intentional interference with the opportunity of a broker to earn a commission is actionable in tort unless the defendants are acting in the exercise of an equal or superior right.

The intentional interference with the opportunity of a broker to earn a commission is actionable in tort unless the defendants are acting in the exercise of an equal or superior right.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the Slatinas had solicited Sustick's help and were aware of his involvement in the negotiations. They informed him they were no longer interested in the property, yet proceeded to purchase it directly from Marotta, which the jury could reasonably interpret as an attempt to eliminate Sustick's commission. Marotta's actions were also scrutinized, as he had promised Sustick a commission and was aware of the ongoing negotiations.

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the Slatinas had solicited Sustick's help and were aware of his involvement in the negotiations.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Sustick, concluding that the Slatinas and Marotta had intentionally interfered with his opportunity to earn a commission.

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Sustick, concluding that the Slatinas and Marotta had intentionally interfered with his opportunity to earn a commission.

Who won?

John A. Sustick, Jr. prevailed in the case because the court found that the Slatinas and Marotta had intentionally interfered with his contractual relationship, leading to his loss of commission.

John A. Sustick, Jr. prevailed in the case because the court found that the Slatinas and Marotta had intentionally interfered with his contractual relationship, leading to his loss of commission.

You must be