can you write a summary of this case study pls

Case Analysis 32.3 NRT New England, LLC v. Jones Appellate Court of Connecticut, 162 Conn. App. 840,134 4.3d 632 (2016), In the Language of the Court exclusive agent for finding, negotiat- and set forth the geo- HARPER, 1 (Judge) ing, and purchasing property. Over the graphical area that the next several months, Woolston devoted defendant was inter- The defendant (Christopher Jones) a substantial amount of time searching ested in and the rate of compensation for met Andrea Woolston, a licensed realtor for properties for the defendant to pur- the plaintiff's services. With respect to working as an independent contractor chase. Specifically, Woolston researched geographical asca, the parties agreed that (for NRT New England, LLC, doing available properties at six town halls in Woolston would seek properties in Kill- business as Coldwell Banker Residen the communities in which the defen- ingworth, Guilford, Essex, Old Saybrook, tial Brokerage), in October 2010. The dant was interested. She showcased a Deep River, Lyme, and Old Lyme (Con- defendant expressed to Woolston a number of properties personally to the necticut). With respect to compensation. desire to purchase a home for himself defendant and Wiltshire and introduced the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff and his then fiance, Katherine Wilt- many more to them through e-mail. a commission equal to 2.5 percent of shire. One of the first things Woolston Woolston and the defendant had at the purchase price of the property "If the asked the defendant was whether he least twenty appointments where they (buyer) or any person or entity acting on was represented by another agent. The viewed multiple properties. Additionally, the buyer's) behalf purchases, options, defendant responded that he was not Woolston visited many properties alone exchanges, leases or crades any property After a number of conversations about to determine if they were suitable for the through the efforts of anyone, including the defendant's needs and wishes, the defendant. Altogether, Woolston spent the buyer)." The agreement imposed the parties executed an exclusive right to hundreds of hours seeking a suitable following duties on the defendant: "The represent buyer agreement (agreement), home for the defendant (buyer will not deal directly with any which established, among other things The agreement was in effect from other broker, agent or licensee during the that Woolston was the defendant's January 11, 2011 until July 11, 2011, term of this agreement. The [buyer) will Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be cople, scanned, er duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 03-900-302 Case 32.3 Continued breach notify other brokers, agents or licensees defendant (for] breach of contract at first contact that the buyer) is being After a trial ***, the court found exclusively represented by (NRT). The that the plaintiff had proven buyer) will disclose to (NRT) any past of contract *** and damages. * * * The and/or current contacts for any real prop- court awarded the plaintiff $34,375 in erty or with any other real estate broker damages (which represented 2.5 percent or agent." of the purchase price for the Vineyard On May 10, 2011, the defendant Point propertyl plus attorney's fees and informed Woolston via e-mail that he costs. This appeal followed. and Wiltshire purchased property at 300 Vineyard Point Road in Guilford The defendant" claims that the for $1,375,000. The defendant learned agreement was unenforceable. Specifi- of this property on May 4, 2011, from cally, he argues that the court improperly Mary Jane Burt, a realtor with H. Pearce *** found that it was inequitable to Real Estate (H. Pearce), who previously deny the plaintiff recovery. had represented Wiltshire with the sale of her house in Hamden (Connecticut). There is ample evidence in the record Woolston subsequently confronted the to support the court's conclusion that defendant and eventually learned that he denying the plaintiff relief would be and Wiltshire previously had executed inequitable. Woolston testified, and the an exclusive right to represent buyer defendant himself conceded, that she agreement with Burt and H. Pearce. This rendered a significant amount of services agreement was in effect from August 1, to the defendant over several months, 2010, until August 1, 2011, and con- Specifically, Woolston researched prop- tained a provision designating Burt as erties at town halls for availability and the exclusive agent for the defendant and encumbrances, contacted property own Wiltshire. Thus, at the time the defen ers, arranged personal visits, prepared dant purchased the property in Guilford, and presented literature to the defendant he was under contract for exclusive on available properties, and attended agency with both Woolston and Burt. appointments with the defendant and The defendant never told Woolston Wiltshire Woolston spent hundreds of or Burt that he had two agreements in hours working for the defendant in total effect at the same time. Woolston noti- The defendant, on the other hand, fied her superiors of what had transpired accepted Woolston's services while under INRT) filed a complaint contract with another agent in violation (in a Connecticut state court against the of the agreement. Indeed, the defendant Legal Reasoning Questions finallhunted States) 116% acknowledged that he was untruthful with Woolston at the beginning of their relationship when he told her that he was not represented by another agent. In fact, he was scheduling appoint- ments and viewing properties with both Woolston and Burt at approximately the same time in May 2011. For example, the defendant e-mailed Woolston on May 2, 2011, thanking her for show. ing him a property. Approximately one week later, the defendant e-mailed Woolston to inform her that he viewed 300 Vineyard Point Road with Burt and had "put in an all cash bid that has been accepted." The defendant nevertheless argues that it would not be inequitable to deny recovery to the plaintiff because Woolston performed no services in con nection with his purchase of 300 Vine- yard Point Road We are not persuaded. The defendant agreed to pay a commission "equal to 2.5% of the purchase price if the buyer or any person or entity acting on the bwyers) behalf purchases *** property through the efforts of anyone including the buyer). Viere an agreement to purchase the property seves entered into during the term of this agreement. "How- ever unjust this result may seem to the defendant in hindsight, we cannot say it is inequitable because it is precisely what he agreed to (Emphasis added.) The judgment is affirmed Focus