Opinion ID: 424016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Gregg's claim for interference with contract relations

Text: 103 Gregg claims (Count VI) that USI maliciously interfered with contractual relations between him and the Leesburg bank by interrupting the dividend checks that had been assigned to the bank. The district judge entered judgment for USI on alternative summary judgment and directed verdict grounds. His basis was that, assuming USI's actions in withholding Gregg's dividend checks were an interference with relations between Gregg and the bank, USI's action was justified as a matter of law because it was exercising its right to setoff. The district court noted that there was evidence of ill will between the parties and allegations by Gregg that the officers of USI were harassing him. But, the court held, the corporation officers had good reason to act to protect the company's interest and they exercised a legally recognized right of setoff. 104 USI was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim. The district court's theory that as a matter of law USI was reasonably justified is fatally flawed by its erroneous conclusion that USI was exercising a legally recognized right of offset. See supra Part V. Moreover, the court noted that there was evidence of ill will between the parties and allegations by Gregg that officers of USI were harassing him; there were not merely allegations that USI was harassing Gregg but actual testimony to this effect. 105 Both USI and the district court appear to say that because Gregg in an election of remedies affirmed the overall transaction, and because it could not be unscrambled by recision, he could not recover on the interference with business relations claim. Election of remedies concerning the transaction between Gregg and USI and difficulties of restoring the status quo are unrelated to any right to recover for allegedly tortious acts done by USI and affecting Gregg's relations with his bank.