Jonathan Cooper’s Blog

Today’s New York Law Journal cites a decision from Supreme Court, New York County Justice Eileen Bransten that found the defendants were not liable to the plaintiff company as a matter of law, despite dismissed the fact that the defendants expressly or implicitly threatened a third party vendor that if the vendor elected to do business with the plaintiff, the defendant would: (i) delay payment or refuse to pay its $10 - 15 million indebtedness to the vendor, and (ii) cancel its existing orders. In her Order dismissing the action, Justice Bransten stated as follows:

“A cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations requires satisfaction of the following elements: (1) business relations with a third party; (2) the defendant’s interference with those business relations; (3) the defendant acting with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or using wrongful means; and (4) injury to the business relationship …

“Wrongful means” pursuant to the third element constitutes conduct that: (1) amounts to “an independent crime or tort;” (2) has “been taken solely out of malice;” or (3) amounts to “extreme and unfair economic pressure” …

Ultimately, Justice Bransten held that the mere fact that the defendant had a legitimate economic interest in discouraging its main distributer from entering into a business relationship with the plaintiff, a competitor, the defendants’ behavior could not be deemed egregious, extreme, or unfair as a matter of law.

Tags: breach of contract, civil litigation, small business, tortious interference

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 4th, 2008 at 1:51 am and is filed under civil litigation, small business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.