Opinion ID: 2358790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tortious Interference with Prospective Contract

Text: Bradford next challenges the jury's verdict that he tortiously interfered with Vento's prospective contractual relations. The Ventos contend that Bradford tortiously interfered with the prospective contract to sell the business to Louis Martin by demanding that Vento release the mall from liability before permitting Vento and Martin to enter the store. The court of appeals held that there was no evidence that Bradford's demand for a release interfered with Vento's contract with Martin because Martin testified that he would not have bought the store had it been in disarray, [3] and there was no evidence that the store's inventory was intact when Vento and Martin tried to gain access to the store. 997 S.W.2d at 731-32. We agree with the court's analysis and conclusion on that issue. The Ventos also contend that, by telling police that Taylor owned the store and effectively ousting Vento, Bradford interfered with Vento's prospective contractual relations with the store's customers. The court of appeals held that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence that Bradford interfered with the Ventos' prospective contracts with potential customers. Id. at 732. Bradford challenges that conclusion on legal sufficiency grounds. The jury was instructed that a party wrongfully interferes with a contract when there was a reasonable probability that Roell Vento would have entered into contractual relationships and any [defendant] intentionally prevented the contractual relationship from occurring with the purpose of harming Roell Vento. Bradford contends that there is no evidence that he intended to interfere with Vento's prospective business relations. Specifically, Bradford argues that there is no evidence that he told police that Taylor owned the store for the purpose of interfering with Vento's prospective sales to potential future customers. In fact, Bradford contends that taking such action would have been contrary to his own interests because the mall received a percentage of the store's sales revenues. Vento responds that there is evidence that Bradford intended to interfere with his potential contractual relations because Bradford was `substantially certain' that his conduct would interfere with Vento's relations. Specifically, Vento argues that Bradford falsely informed the police that Taylor owned Collector's Choice, asked them to divest Vento of his property, and gave it to Taylor and that these facts, taken together, constitute legally sufficient evidence that Bradford knew his conduct would interfere with Vento's contractual relations. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, interference is intentional if the actor desires to bring it about or if he knows that the interference is certain or substantially certain to occur as a result. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B cmt. d (1979). But the Restatement further provides that [i]f [the actor] had no desire to effectuate the interference by his action but knew that it would be a mere incidental result of conduct he was engaging in for another purpose, the interference may be found to be not improper. Id. The evidence shows that the police, in attempting to quell the disturbance in the mall, asked Bradford either who was on the lease or who owned the store. Under Vento's version of the facts, Bradford replied that Taylor owned the store and threatened to file criminal trespassing charges against Vento if he returned. But this is not evidence that Bradford acted with the intent to harm Vento's business relations. Although Vento contends that Bradford knew Vento owned the store because Bradford congratulated him on October 4, that does not mean that Bradford was lying two days later when he told police Taylor owned the store. Vento showed Bradford the contract for sale, but the contract indicated only that Taylor wished to sell his share of the store to Vento, stating that Roell and Debra Vento have signed below stating their intent to purchase the additional 50% of Collector's Choice from Tom Taylor. Although Bradford indicated that he knew Vento was purchasing the store, there is no evidence that he knew that the sale had been finalized. And, on October 5 or 6, Taylorwith whom Bradford had had previous dealings as owner of the store and whose name was on the leasetold Bradford that he still owned the store despite Vento's claim to ownership. Thus, the evidence shows at most that Bradford knew that there was a dispute over ownership. [4] Further, the evidence shows that Bradford was responding to police questioning in an attempt to end the disturbance and protect mall property. In order to resolve the situation immediately, the police asked Bradford for a judgment call regarding who owned the store. There is no evidence that Bradford was intending to prevent Vento from dealing with prospective future customers when he told police that Taylor owned the store. When Bradford responded to police questioning, the fact that Vento would not be able to do business with customers was a mere incidental result of conduct [Bradford] was engaging in for another purpose. Id. Thus, the interference was at most only an incidental result of Bradford's legitimate conduct. Accordingly, there is no evidence to support the jury's finding that Bradford tortiously interfered with the Ventos' prospective contractual relations.