Bump v. Robbins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that a parent company could be held liable for a subsidiary’s violations of Chapter 93A where there had been a “de facto merger” between the two entities
• holding that a seller may be liable for a commission if he either wrongfully defaults on his promise to sell the property or if he intends to take advantage of the broker’s efforts without paying him any compensation
• reversing jury verdict for plaintiff on common-law claims, but affirming judge’s finding for plaintiff on c. 93A claim
• “There is evidence of out-of-pocket expenditures for travel and long-distance telephone calls, time spent at meetings and in other related activities, and the usual charges Bump made for his time.”
• \To create an exclusive brokerage . . . the parties must expressly and unambiguously indicate such an intent in the contract\
• closely identified corporation would be responsible for debt of its sister entity, where facts showed in substance a merger between the two

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).