Legal Opinion

Capezzuto v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided April 24, 1984PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

The defendant (John Hancock) was granted summary judgment based on a ruling by the judge that the plaintiff, a real estate broker, could not have become legally entitled to a commission because, as was agreed, John Hancock, the owner, had never signed a purchase and sale agreement with, or otherwise accepted, the buyer produced by the plaintiff. The decision was predicated on Tristram’s Landing, Inc. v. Wait, 367 Mass. 622 (1975), which adopted a rule that a broker engaged by the owner to find a purchaser “earns his commission when (a) he produces a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy on…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1967
  2. Fitzpatrick v. GilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
  3. Tristram's Landing, Inc. v. WaitMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  4. Stern v. Old Colony Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  5. Des Rivieres v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Capezzuto v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  2. John E. Bennett, D/B/A Bennett Realty, Etc. v. James P. McCabe and John M. ZitaglioCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API