A. R. E. E. A., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA GOLDSTEIN AND SANDRA GOLDSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Terminable At Will Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Goldstein is affirmed. The record establishes, without genuine issue of material fact, that (a) there could be no tortious interference with the employment contract between plaintiff and Ms. Wiles since the contract was terminable at will, Wackenhut Corp. v. Maimone, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see also Lake Gateway Motor Inn, Inc. v. Matt’s Sunshine Gift Shops, Inc., 361 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and (b) the underlying tort of willful interference with a business relationship, necessary to the establishment of a cause of action for conspiracy to interfere, could not exist since defendant was the source of the business opportunity which defendant and Ms. Wiles allegedly conspired to deprive plaintiff of. United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. Gillespie, 377 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1979); Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hospital District, 403 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); West v. Troelstrup, 367 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
FERGUSON, Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur in the results but would reject the majority holding that there can be no actionable interference with an employment contract which is terminable at will. The cases relied upon in the majority opinion, Wackenhut Corp. v. Maimone, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) and Lake Gateway Motor Inn, Inc. v. Matt’s Sunshine Gift Shops, Inc., 261 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1979), stand for the rule that allegations of an intentional and unjustified interference with an existing business relationship which causes damage to the plaintiff establishes a prima facie ease, and that the burden then shifts to the defendant to justify that interference. If the defendant can prove that the interference was merely that of lawful competition — a privilege which courts readily recognize when the contract interfered with is terminable at will — the defendant will not be found to have committed the tort of wrongful business interference. See W. Prosser, Law of Torts, § 129 (4th ed. 1971) at pp. 932, 946. See also Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White & White Inspection and Audit Service, Inc., 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Mays v. Stratton, 183 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Unistar Corp. v. Child, 415 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…discretion. Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the preliminary injunction. Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL, HENDRY, SCHWARTZ, NESBITT, BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ. . See A.R.E.E.A., Inc. v. Goldstein, 411 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) holding to the contrary, which by separate opinion, this writer rejected as a correct statement of law.…1 / 2
-
The Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…f the business opportunity which plaintiffs sought. The tort of willful interference with a business relationship does not exist where the defendant was the source of the business opportunity allegedly interfered with. A.R.E.E.A., Inc. v. Goldstein, 411 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Likewise, there can be no claim where the action complained of is undertaken to safeguard or promote one’s financial or economic interest. Bruce v. American Development Corp., 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ethyl Corp. v. Ba…
-
Benny Malver v. Sheffield Indus., Inc., 462 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…benefits. Since the expectancy which was allegedly interfered with flowed directly from Sheffield’s employment relationship with Malver, it is not possible for the plaintiff to state a cause of action for interference. A.R.E.E.A., Inc. v. Goldstein, 411 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220, 1223-24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order dismissing the complaint is affirmed with directions that the plaintiff be allowed to amend Count I. Affirmed with directions.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Politis v. Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp., 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Balter v. Ethyl Corp., 452 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1981)
- John W. Buckner, M.D. v. The Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist., 403 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Wackenhut Corp. v. Maimone, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Ins. Field Servs., Inc. v. White & White Inspection & Audit Serv., Inc., 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. Gillespie, 377 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1979)
- Lake Gateway Motor INN, Inc. v. Matt's Sunshine Gift Shops, Inc., 361 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- West v. Troelstrup, 367 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Mays v. Stratton, 183 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Porterfield v. Porterfield, 188 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1966)