Opinion ID: 715363
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interference with Maxim's contractual relationship with Pioneer Standard

Text: 20 Maxim asserts that ADI induced Pioneer Standard to breach its contractual obligation to: 21 use its best efforts to promote the use and sale within the Territory of all the Product(s) contemplated under this agreement and to develop and supply as broad a market therefore as shall be possible. 22 (emphasis added). Maxim claims that months before Pioneer Standard gave its thirty-day notice of termination, ADI induced Pioneer Standard to switch already-booked but unfilled Maxim orders and to divulge confidential Maxim information. 23 ADI makes two arguments against Maxim's accusation. First, ADI asserts that, as a matter of law, Pioneer Standard did not violate any of its contractual obligations to Maxim by diverting business to ADI. Second, ADI contends that Pioneer Standard's actions were unilateral and therefore ADI cannot be held liable for any breach that might have occurred. 24
25 ADI's first argument is that, as a matter of law, Pioneer Standard could not violate the Maxim contract's best efforts clause. We disagree. 26 There is no firm rule as to what constitutes adequate best efforts. Some cases have suggested that a best efforts clause required the promisor to employ the same efforts he has employed in other contracts where the adequacy of his efforts have not been questioned. Olympia Hotels Corp. v. Johnson Wax Dev. Corp., 908 F.2d 1363, 1373 (7th Cir.1993). Other cases merely require that the promisor not undertake activity that is so manifestly harmful ... as to justify the court in saying there was a breach of the covenant. Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Meville, Inc. v. Hayden Publishing Co., 330 N.Y.S.2d 329, 334, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 875 (1972). 27 Essentially, what we have here is a dispute over the interpretation of best efforts. This question is properly one for the jury. United Telecomm v. American Television & Comm. Corp., 536 F.2d 1310, 1319 (10th Cir.1976) (Both parties had introduced evidence bearing on the negotiations and the meaning intended for the term best efforts. When the interpretation is in dispute as is was here, it is a question for the jury.). Therefore, we reject ADI's argument that, as a matter of law, there was no breach of the contract. 28
29 Maxim's evidence that ADI was involved in Pioneer Standard's decision to undertake the challenged actions is more than sufficient to survive summary judgment. For example, one internal Pioneer Standard memo states that there was an agreement between ADI and Pioneer Standard to identify [to ADI] major Maxim opportunities, and [ADI] will be competitive to assure [Pioneer Standard] of transferring the business.... Another memo states I met with the ADI rep ... and shared with him all of the [Maxim] business we have done over the past year. 30 Because Maxim presented enough evidence for a rational finder of fact to determine that ADI induced Pioneer Standard to violate its contract with Maxim, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on Maxim's claim that ADI intentionally interfered with the Pioneer Standard contract. 31