Doliner v. Brown

Upon full findings of fact, a judge of the Superior Court ruled, first, that the defendant Harold Brown had not committed an actionable interference with the plaintiff Julius Doliner’s prospective contractual relations concerning a condominium conversion, and, second, that he did not stand in breach of G. L. c. 93A, § 11. Doliner does not contest the judge’s findings of fact,1 and we are persuaded that the judge *693was right in his application of the law. We do no more than outline the situation and comment briefly on the legal propositions.

Doliner, an experienced real estate developer and…