Donovan v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 28 May 1928 |
| Citation | 161 N.E. 606,263 Mass. 561 |
| Parties | DONOVAN v. FREEMAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Harold P. Williams, Judge.
Action by James A. Donovan against Edward F. Freeman. On defendant's exceptions to refusal to direct a verdict. Exceptions overruled.
Contracts k29-Intention to make subsequent agreement is not necessarily conclusive that parties did not intend previous negotiations to constitute agreement.
Though circumstance that parties intend a subsequent agreement to be made is strong evidence that they did not intend previous negotiations to amount to an agreement, it is not necessarily conclusive, as respects right to have directed verdict.
J. M. Maloney and P. J. McManus, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
John J. Enright, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action by a real estate broker to recover a commission. The evidence was conflicting and justified contradictory inferences. We find no error in the refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant. It is his contention that the buyer, introduced by the plaintiff, and the seller had not arrived at a completed bargain when the latter put an end to the negotiations by selling to a third party at a greater price. His difficulty is that the testimony permitted a different finding of fact. It is true, as was stated in Doten v. Chase, 237 Mass. 218, 220, 129 N. E. 363, cited by the defendant, that ‘the circumstance that the parties do intend a subsequent agreement to be made, is strong evidence to show that they did not intend the previous negotiations to amount to an agreement’; but it is not necessarily conclusive.
A finding that no completed agreement has been made seems more consistent with the printed evidence; but we cannot say that the judge who saw and heard the witnesses was wrong in ruling that an issue of fact to be determined from conflicting evidence was presented. There is nothing in this which contradicts the decisions in Flax v. Sovrensky (Mass. 1928) 159 N. E. 497, and Kelly v. Johnson, 258 Mass. 478, 155 N. E. 444.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenfield v. United States Trust Co.
...Products, Inc., 283 Mass. 383, 387, 186 N. E. 562. Said fact does not conclusively establish such intention. Donovan v. Freeman, 263 Mass. 561, 562, 161 N. E. 606. If all the material terms which are to be incorporated into a future writing have been agreed upon, it may be inferred that the......
-
Lieberman v. Cohn
...upon the terms of the exchange (Flax v. Sovrensky, 262 Mass. 60, 159 N. E. 497), this circumstance was not conclusive (Donovan v. Freeman, 263 Mass. 561, 161 N. E. 606). Spevak testified in substance that the negotiations were ‘finished’ as to ‘terms and details' and there ‘was nothing else......
-
Rosenfield v. United States Trust Co.
... ... Products, Inc., 283 Mass. 383, 387, 186 N.E. 562. Said ... fact does not conclusively establish such intention ... Donovan v. Freeman, 263 Mass. 561, 562, 161 N.E ... 606. If all the material terms which are to be incorporated ... into a future writing have been agreed ... ...
-
George W. Wilcox, Inc. v. Shell Eastern Petroleum Prods., Inc.
...not conclusive on the question whether they intended earlier to be bound or to what extent they intended to be so bound, Donovan v. Freeman, 263 Mass. 561, 161 N. E. 606, tends to indicate the intent that their final contract was to be the binding expression of all their completed negotiati......