From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Schenkel

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Feb 17, 1958
26 N.J. 166 (N.J. 1958)

Opinion

Argued January 22, 1958 —

Decided February 17, 1958.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Law Division.

Mr. Herbert J. Kenarik argued the cause for appellants.

Mr. George J. Lasky argued the cause for respondents W.L. Holding Co. and William Liebowitz.

Mr. Fred Feinberg argued the cause for respondents Joseph Schenkel and Peter Dedoussis.


Defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court found a triable issue as to liability, and we agree. It concluded, however, that no damages were shown and on that basis granted the motion. We think that elements of damages appeared. The alleged violation of the broker's agreement supports a claim for nominal damages. In addition there is the obligation incurred by plaintiffs to their attorney for preparation of the proposed contract of sale, and perhaps also economic loss in omitting to seek other utilization of the property on the strength of what plaintiffs thought were bona fide negotiations conducted in accordance with instructions to the defendant broker. As to mental anguish and punitive damages, we think it unwise to express any opinion at this stage for want of a definitive factual setting. See generally Prosser, Torts (2 d ed. 1955), § 2, pp. 9-11; § 11, p. 38; 1 Harper and James, Law of Torts (1956), § 9.1, p. 665.

The judgment is reversed, costs to abide the event of the trial.

For reversal — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices WACHENFELD, BURLING, JACOBS, FRANCIS and PROCTOR — 6.

For affirmance — Justice HEHER — 1.


Summaries of

Harris v. Schenkel

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Feb 17, 1958
26 N.J. 166 (N.J. 1958)
Case details for

Harris v. Schenkel

Case Details

Full title:MOE HARRIS AND LENA HARRIS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. JOSEPH SCHENKEL, ET…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Feb 17, 1958

Citations

26 N.J. 166 (N.J. 1958)
138 A.2d 836

Citing Cases

Anchor Loans, L.P. v. Sajous

Moreover, even if the non- breaching party did not suffer any damage that arose from the breach, the breach…