Opinion ID: 5499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: legal justification

Text: We hold that HBO's interferences was justified as a matter of law. If it be necessary under Texas law to prove good faith assertion, even of a valid superior right, HBO acted to protect its own contractual interest, and the record overwhelmingly demonstrates that HBO acted in good faith. See Victoria Bank, 811 S.W.2d at 939-40; Rally's, 939 F.2d at 1271. The judgment of the district court is reversed and judgment is here rendered in favor of HBO.6 REVERSED and RENDERED. 4 Even if we were to take into account the parties' subjective intent, the evidence overwhelmingly supports HBO's contention that the Dynamic Duo and HBO intended for HBO to have the exclusive right to telecast the fight to home viewers. 5 We interpret the language on HBO programming services found in paragraph 2 to mean that HBO could exhibit the fight only on the HBO channel, which is generally marketed through cable companies to subscribers. Thus, HBO could not transfer its exclusive telecast rights to ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, Showtime, etc. 6 This lawsuit was brought by PPV and Space Age Video of Texas, Inc. During trial, the district court dismissed Space Age Video's claims, and only submitted questions concerning PPV's tortious interference claim to the jury. However, the district court's final judgment purports to award damages to PPV and Space Age Video. The inclusion of Space Age Video in the court's final judgment was an oversight. We vacate any final judgment by the district court in favor of Space Age Video.