Doliner v. Brown

Julius Doliner (plaintiff), seeking financing to buy and convert an apartment building into condominiums, discussed a second mortgage with two intermediaries who then approached Harold Brown (defendant), a fellow condominium-conversion competitor, about a potential 50 percent stake. Brown investigated the deal independently and ultimately bought the building himself at the same price Doliner had offered. The trial court found Brown's interference caused Doliner to lose the financing and the deal, but ruled that as a competitor who used no unlawful means, Brown had not committed the tort of intentional interference.