Court Opinion

ID: 9540988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:21:27.299553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:58.172488
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
As to Division 3 of our opinion, NEC argues on rehearing that it was “privileged” under the terms of its dealer agreement with IMS to also enter into a dealer agreement with Bio-Lab. See Division 2, supra. That is, NEC contends that it was free to “compete” with IMS for Bio-Lab’s business. Assuming arguendo that NEC and IMS were “competitors” for Bio-Lab’s business, in order for NEC to come under the protection of the competition privilege, it must establish inter alia that it did not employ improper means. See Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Martin Co., 240 Ga. 662, 666 (242 SE2d 135) (1978). The evidence of record, as noted in Division 3, does not conclusively establish the propriety of the means employed by NEC in its “compe*203tition” with IMS for Bio-Lab’s business.
Decided March 12, 1985
Rehearing denied March 27, 1985
John H. Ridley, Jr., for appellant.
Sidney Parks, Peyton S. Hawes, Jr., Randolph A. Rogers, Gerald L. Morel, Stephen M. Proctor, James R. Mitchell, for appellees.

Judgment adhered to.