CHARLES WALLACE CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALTERNATIVE COPIER CONCEPTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND THOMAS M. GENERALLI, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Charles Wallace Co. appealed the dismissal of its amended complaint alleging intentional interference with a business relationship. The court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently pleaded all elements of the tort because Wallace adequately alleged facts showing it had a prospective business relationship with Alternative Copier Concepts that would have been completed but for the defendants' intentional interference.
Yes. Wallace sufficiently pleaded the tort of intentional interference with a business relationship or expectancy because the complaint alleged: (1) the existence of a business relationship under which Wallace had legal rights; (2) the defendants' intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship; and (3) damages resulting from the breach.
[1] An appellate court reviewing an order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a cause of action must assume all well-pleaded allegations are true and determine if rel…
[2] The tort of intentional interference with a business relationship or expectancy requires: (1) the existence of a business relationship with legal rights, (2) the defendan…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In reviewing an order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the appellate court must assume that all well pleaded allegations of the complaint are true and determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief under any state of facts.”
Establishes the standard of review for dismissal motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWallace bid on copying machines from GECC and won the bid, agreeing on price and delivery terms. Wallace then contacted Generalli at Alternative Copie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intentional And Unjustified Interference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant1 seeks review of an order which dismissed with prejudice its amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse, concluding that appellant sufficiently pleaded all of the elements of the cause of action for intentional interference with a business relationship or expectancy.
In reviewing an order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the appellate court must assume that all well pleaded allegations of the complaint are true and determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief under any state of facts. Midflorida Schools Federal Credit Union v. Fansler, 404 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
In its amended complaint, appellant alleged the following facts. GECC offered to sell appellant several copying machines and requested appellant to bid. Appellant did bid, and GECC advised appellant that it had submitted the winning bid. GECC and appellant agreed on a price and that the equipment would be released for shipment in increments from various locations and would be delivered within ten days after receipt of appellant’s cashier’s check. GECC and appellant agreed on the first fifteen machines to be shipped. Appellant contacted appellee Generalli who was acting on behalf of appellee Alternative Copier Concepts, Inc., and proposed to sell a large number of copiers to Alternative which appellant was purchasing from GECC. Appellant and appellees were negotiating the terms of the purchase. Ap-pellees informed appellant that it had obtained a letter of credit and requested information regarding the initial shipment and asked appellant from whom appellant was receiving the equipment. Appellant disclosed to appellees that GECC was the supplier. Appellees then contacted GECC directly and purchased a large number of machines from GECC which appellant was in the process of purchasing. Appellees’ actions directly damaged appellant.
The elements of the tort of interference with a business relationship or expectancy are the following: (1) the existence of a business relationship under which the claimant has legal rights; (2) the defendant’s intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship; and (3) damages to the claimant as a result of the breach of the business relationship. Security Title Guarantee Corp. v. McDill Columbus Corp., 543 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The business relationship does not have to be the product of an enforceable contract. Instead, an action for intentional interference with a business relationship or expectancy will lie if the parties’ understanding would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Appellant alleged facts sufficient to plead a cause of action for intentional interference with a business expectancy.
Accordingly, this court reverses the order dismissing the amended complaint and remands this matter to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur. . Steve Wallace Co., Inc., was the plaintiff in the trial court. On appeal, it filed a motion to have Charles Wallace Co., Inc., the real party in interest, substituted in its stead. This court granted the motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994)…Matt’s Sunshine Gift Shops, Inc., 361 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1979). Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844, 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also Charles Wal [*815] lace Co. v. Alternative Copier Concepts, Inc., 583 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (“[A]n action for intentional interference with a business relationship or expectancy will lie if the parties’ understanding would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered.”); United Yacht Brokers v. Gillespie,…
-
Hall v. Burger King Corp., 912 F. Supp. 1509 (S.D. Fla. 1995)…ts; (2) the defendant’s intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship; and (3) damages to the claimant as a result of defendant’s breach of the business relationship.” Charles Wallace Co. v. Alternative Copier Concepts, Inc., 583 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (citing Security Title Guarantee Corp. v. McDill Columbus Corp., 543 So.2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)); accord Miller v. Selden, 591 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Doft & Co. v. Home Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass’n,…
-
Sirpal v. Univ. of Miami, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2010)…ffer to sell is insufficient to state a claim, see id., “an action ... will lie if the parties’ understanding would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered,” Charles Wallace Co., Inc. v. Alternative Copier Concepts, Inc., 583 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). For example, where negotiations progressed beyond a mere offer to an understanding between the parties for the sale of a business, a protected business relationship existed. See Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So.2d 844, 846…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- F.T. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Lester v. Lester, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Sec. Title Guar. Corp. of Baltimore v. McDILL Columbus Corp., 543 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty. v. The Pinellas Cnty. Comm'n & Metric Constructors, Inc., 404 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Midflorida Schs. Fed. Credit Union v. Fansler, 404 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)