Opinion ID: 198733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intentional Interference With Advantageous BusinessRelationship

Text: 49 Under Massachusetts law, to state a cause of action for intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship, plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendants (1) engaged in intentional and willful acts (2) calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs' lawful business (3) with an unlawful purpose and without right or justification, (4) thereby causing actual damage or loss. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 884 F. Supp. 35, 40 (D. Mass. 1995); Chemawa Country Golf, Inc. v. Wnuk, 402 N.E.2d 1069, 1072 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). 50 In this case, Serpa argues that defendants acted in stealthy haste to terminate Serpa's contract to prevent it from acquiring competing product lines to sell to its former Anaco customers. As with its other contractual claims, Serpa relies on Cherick in support of its argument. Again, however, we find that Cherick is inapposite. In Cherick, the court held [t]he jury could have found that the abrupt termination of Cherick's distributorship agreement, coinciding as it did with the planned meeting of Polar distributors, was calculated to put Cherick out of business and thereby discourage other distributors from meeting. 669 N.E.2d at 220. Here, in contrast, defendants made a legitimate business decision based on obvious efficiency concerns to eliminate one of two overlapping distributors. There is no evidence in the record of an unlawful or improper motive, and nothing in the record indicates that defendants' conduct was calculated to injure Serpa. Further, there is no evidence that a month is insufficient notice of termination. Accordingly, we find that summary judgment on this claim was proper. 51