J. ROLFE DAVIS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD SYMON AND JAMES C. TULLY, 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.
J. Rolfe Davis, Inc. secured tenants for a shopping center under contract with the original developer, but after the property was sold to defendants, defendants completed the leases without compensating Davis. The court reversed the trial court's decision to set aside a jury verdict in Davis's favor, holding that fraud is not a necessary element of a tortious interference with business relationship claim.
Fraud is not a necessary element in every action for intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship when neither the pleadings nor proof raise fraud. The trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction on fraud when the case did not require it.
[1] An action for intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship does not require fraud as a necessary element.
[2] If neither the pleadings nor the proof in an interference with business relationship claim raise fraud, an instruction on fraud is not required.
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“Fraud is not a necessary element in every action for an intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship. If neither the pleadings nor proof raise it then an instruction on fraud is not required.”
Establishes the core holding that fraud is not always required for tortious interference claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis contracted with Lease-Bak, Inc. to secure tenants for a proposed shopping center and obtained a proposed lease from a grocery chain and a letter…
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 Interference With Advantageous Business Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., appeals an order setting aside a jury verdict in its favor and granting defendants a new trial.1 We reverse.
Plaintiff contracted with Lease-Bak, Inc. to secure tenants for its proposed shopping center, and proceeded to obtain a proposed lease from a grocery chain and a letter of intent from a drug chain.
Lease-Bak did not develop the shopping center but sold it to defendants. Upon learning of the proposed sale plaintiff advised defendants in writing of its interest, thereby placing defendants on actual notice of the agreement between Lease-Bak and plaintiff. The sale proceeded and was conditioned upon the purchasers’ successful negotiation of leases with the aforementioned grocery and drug chains. The grocery chain signed a lease before sale and the drug chain did so thereafter.
Plaintiff then sued defendants in two counts. Count I of the amended complaint was a quasi contract claim based on unjust enrichment and asserted: plaintiff’s contract with Lease-Bak to furnish services as agent and representative to secure tenants for the proposed shopping center; compliance therewith; the sale of the property to defendants; the lease arrangements between defendants and the chain stores; and that defendants, with full knowledge of both plaintiff’s contract and its services, took advantage thereof and were unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff.
Count II asserted a tort claim arising out of the same circumstances and alleged that defendants, knowing of the services rendered by plaintiff, purchased the property, continued negotiations with the prospective tenants procured by the plaintiff and intentionally refused to recognize plaintiff’s rights under the latter’s agreement with Lease-Bak, thereby interfering with the advantageous business relationship of the plaintiff with Lease-Bak.
Fraud is not a necessary element in every action for an intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship. If neither the pleadings nor proof raise it then an instruction on fraud is not required.2
*441An instruction on fraud was not applicable in this instance, and accordingly this cause is hereby reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter an appropriate judgment on the verdict favoring plaintiff.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
CROSS, C. J., concurs in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. The Ocean State Bank, 335 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…in both John B. Reid and Associates, Inc., and Franklin the element of fraud was present, it is not necessarily a required element of this tort. Our sister court of the [*644] Fourth District came to this conclusion in J. Rolfe Davis, Inc. v. Symon, 232 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The court there stated: “Fraud is not a necessary element in every action for an intentional and unjustified interference with an advantageous business relationship. If neither the pleadings nor proof raise it then an instructi…
-
McDONALD v. McGOWAN, 402 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ract right, similar to interference with a business relationship, is recognized in this jurisdiction. Young v. Pottinger, 340 So. 2d 518 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Smith v. Ocean State Bank, 335 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); J. Rolfe Davis, Inc. v. Symon, 232 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The elements of this tort are: (1) The existence of a contract; (2) The defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) The defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) Absence of any justification or privile…
-
Sullivan v. Econ. Research Props., 455 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…ht, similar to interference with a business relationship, is recognized in this jurisdiction. Young v. Pottinger, 340 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Smith v. Ocean State Bank, 335 So. 2d 641 (Fla. [*632] 1st DCA 1976); J. Rolfe Davis, Inc. v. Symon, 232 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The elements of this tort are: (1) The existence of a contract; (2) The defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) The defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) Absence of any justification or privile…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Enters., Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1935)
- Franklin v. Brown, 159 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- The Mead Corp. v. Mason, 191 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Emil Morton v. The Mastan Co., Inc., 181 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Lucille Hadley et vir v. Youngblood, 215 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Myron Retzky v. J. A. Cantor Assocs., Inc., 192 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)