Opinion ID: 6345121
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Shea Was a Broker or Finder

Text: Massachusetts courts construe Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 259, § 7 liberally and give ordinary meaning to the terms broker and finder. See Cantell v. Hill Holliday Connors Cosmopulos, Inc., 772 N.E.2d 1078, 1081 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). A broker is an agent who acts as an intermediary or negotiator or who is employed to make bargains and contracts between other persons in matters of trade, commerce, and navigation, id. at 1082 (quoting Broker, Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999)), whereas a finder is [a]n intermediary who brings together parties for a business opportunity, id. at 1082 (alteration in original) (quoting Finder, Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999)). See also Corp. Dev. Assocs. v. Staples, Inc., No. 122183, 2013 Mass. Super. LEXIS - 11 - 9, at  (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2013) (A finder differs from a broker-dealer because the finder merely brings two parties together to make their own contract, while a broker-dealer usually participates in the negotiations. (quoting Finder, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009))). Massachusetts courts apply the provision to arrangements where, as here, one of the parties agrees to help the other facilitate a deal with a third party. Cf. Cantell, 772 N.E.2d at 1082; Corp. Dev. Assocs., 2013 Mass. Super. LEXIS 9, at . The undisputed evidence is that Shea's services to Millett were that of a broker or finder as contemplated by the statute.7 Shea testified at his deposition that he understood his obligations w[ere] to help [Millett] secure a royalty deal that [Millett] had previously been unable to secure, and agreed that the oral agreement had Dr. Millett paying [Shea] for [his] time negotiating deals. Shea's second June 7, 2010 email references his and Millett's negotiations with [Arthrex's representative]. And in 2010, Shea reached out to representatives of various medical device companies to discuss Millett and help facilitate a business deal between Millett and a third party: Arthrex.8 7 There is no merit in Shea's overbroad claim that whether a party is a broker or finder is not amenable to resolution on summary judgment. 8 That Millett had a prior business relationship with Arthrex does not change this result. See Alexander, 560 N.E.2d at 1297 (determining a plaintiff was a broker where he brought - 12 - We turn next to the question of whether or not the writings and statements on which Shea relies satisfy the statute of frauds.