1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 255 N.J.
  5. 255 N.J. Super. 100 (1992)
 

FEIST & FEIST REALTY v. DOCKSIDE

255 N.J. Super. 100 (1992)

604 A.2d 653

FEIST & FEIST REALTY CORP., PLAINTIFF, v. DOCKSIDE URBAN RENEWAL CORP. AND CLIFFORD H. SLAVIN, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Essex County.

Decided January 10, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Philip Elberg, attorney for plaintiff (Medvin & Elberg).

Dominic J. Aprile, attorney for defendant (Bathgate, Wegener, Wouters & Neumann).

FUENTES, J.S.C.

Plaintiff Feist and Feist Realty Corp., moves for summary judgment against defendant, Dockside Urban Renewal Corp. (Dockside), claiming a broker's commission for having procured a tenant for defendant. Defendant claims that no agreement for a commission was ever made. In this case, I find that since the broker sent a letter to the owner offering a prospective tenant in exchange for a commission and the letter was not repudiated, a unilateral contract...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases