Opinion ID: 414166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Probability

Text: 19 The first element of a tortious interference cause of action is that there was a 'reasonable probability' that [plaintiffs] would have entered into a contractual relationship. Leonard Duckworth, supra, 516 F.2d at 956. In this context this element means that plaintiffs must show a reasonable probability that, absent Melroy's circumvention of the brokers, Verkin and Weston would have found a buyer for Banfield's property and received their commission. It need not be absolutely certain that the prospective contract would have been made were it not for such interference. A reasonable assurance thereof in view of all the circumstances, is generally sufficient. 86 C.J.S. Torts Sec. 43, p. 959. Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 455 S.W.2d 429, 435 (Tex.Civ.App.1970, no writ). 20 We find ample evidence to support the jury's finding. Both Verkin and Weston testified that they had other prospective buyers who might have purchased the property but for Melroy's acts. Record at II-43 to 44, III-357, IV-388. Furthermore, Melroy learned of the property through Verkin and Melroy's efforts, and it is undisputed that Banfield would have paid Verkin and Weston had he known Melroy was located through their efforts. Record at II-9, III-227 to 28. The jury was entitled to infer that Banfield would have paid Verkin and Melroy their commission had Melroy submitted his offer through the chain of brokers rather than deliberately bypassing them. 21 The court below believed that the length of the chain from Banfield through three brokers to Melroy made the finding of reasonable probability unsupportable. This is nothing more than a rejection of the inferences the jury was entitled to draw. However, it is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses. Boeing, supra, 411 F.2d at 375. The jury finding of reasonable probability is supported by the evidence and must stand.