Legal Opinion
Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 17, 2003No. AC 22367PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WEST, J.
The plaintiff, Colliers, Dow and Condon, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants in this breach of contract action. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) relied on parol evidence to vary an express term of a real estate brokerage agreement and (2) concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants’ breach of the agreement by a preponder*464anee of the evidence.1 We agree with the plaintiff and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to our disposition of the plaintiffs appeal.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Connecticut National Bank v. VoogSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Lar-Rob Bus Corp. v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Real Estate Listing Service, Inc. v. Connecticut Real Estate CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hudson United Bank v. Cinnamon Ridge Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Krevis v. City of BridgeportConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Palmieri v. CirinoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Seligson v. BrowerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Colliers, Dow and Condon, Inc. v. SchwartzConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.