Azar v. Lehigh Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-858,78-858 |
| Citation | 364 So.2d 860 |
| Parties | Leroy G. AZAR, Individually and as Trustee, Appellant, v. LEHIGH CORPORATION and First United Investors, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
E. G. Couse of Grace & Couse, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellant.
Thomas R. Spencer, Jr. of Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin & Richards, Miami, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a temporary restraining order filed pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Appellee, Lehigh Corporation, is engaged in the business of developing and selling real property in a large development project in Lee County known as Lehigh Acres. Appellee, First United Investors, Inc., is a registered real estate broker and the sales agent in the State of Florida for Lehigh Corporation. The only motel in the community is owned and operated by Lehigh. The motel is open to the public. Part of Lehigh's promotional campaign for the sale of property is to bring prospective purchasers to Lehigh Acres where they are provided accommodations at Lehigh's expense and given the opportunity to see Lehigh's property and to talk to salesmen regarding the property available for purchase.
Appellant was formerly an employee of Lehigh in the sales department. Since his termination, the appellant has pursued a practice of following prospective customers to the Lehigh Motel and persuading them to rescind their contracts with Lehigh for the purchase of property and to purchase property from him at a lower price. The appellees charged that appellant was surreptitiously obtaining customer lists from some of their employees, but appellant said he could spot their customers by following people down the street and observing whether they were carrying the big envelopes full of sales literature supplied by appellee. Appellant would then seek out the customer in his motel room and offer to handle the rescission of his contract if the customer would move out of the motel and buy a lot from appellant.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the court issued the following temporary restraining order, to wit:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant, Leroy Azar, is hereby restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly contacting or soliciting the Plaintiff's perspective (sic) or actual customers on the premises of the Lehigh Resort Motel or at the sales offices of the Plaintiffs if such purchasers are in Lee County as guests of the Plaintiffs. "Guests" of the Plaintiffs shall mean persons who have been invited by the Plaintiffs, either directly or indirectly, to view the Lehigh Acres community and real estate situate therein. "Invited" shall mean those persons who have come to the Lehigh Acres community as a result of any promotional activities of the Plaintiffs wherein some incentive of value has been given or offered to said persons. The "Defendant", Leroy Azar, shall include any person or entity acting in the Defendant's behalf or at the urging of the Defendant, Leroy Azar.
Appellant seeks review of this order. 1
The appellant asserts that appellees' customers have a right under federal law to rescind their contracts within three days and that he is merely providing them with an opportunity to be relieved of their contract and to obtain comparable property for lower prices. He points out that the customers' "vacation certificates" under which they obtain lodging at no cost or at reduced rates does not obligate them to buy or even to look at the lots offered for sale by Lehigh.
The allegations of the complaint are broader in scope, but the theory upon which the appellees obtained the temporary restraining order was that the appellant was tortiously interfering with the advantageous business relationship between them and their customers.
In Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278 (Fla.4th DCA 1971), the court enumerated the elements of this tort as follows:
(1) the existence of a business relationship under which the plaintiff has legal rights, (2) an intentional and unjustified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at Welleby, Inc.
...Inc., 245 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 36 (Fla.1971). As is further pointed out in Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978): It is not essential, however, that the business relationship be founded upon an enforceable contract. Franklin v. Brown, ......
-
Southern Alliance Corp. v. City of Winter Haven, 85-2704
...by the defendant; and (3) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the breach of the business relationship. Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Southern alleged in Count IV of its complaint that prior to the above-described events, Southern had established and enjoyed an o......
-
Int'l Sales & Service v. Austral Insulated Products
...expectancy exists with neither buyer nor seller having acquired legal rights binding one or the other"); but see Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860, 862 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (distinguishing Lake Gateway by stating that "the business relationship allegedly interfered with [in Lake Gateway......
-
Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White & White Inspection and Audit Service, Inc.
...to which appellee had legal rights. These legal rights need not have been evidenced by an enforceable contract. Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); John B. Reid and Associates, Inc. v. Jimenez, 181 So.2d 575 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Franklin v. Brown, 159 So.2d 893 (Fla.1st DCA......
-
Business & commercial cases
...489, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). 7. Fearick v. Smugglers Cove, Inc. , 379 So.2d 400, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). 8. Azar v. Lehigh Corporation , 364 So.2d 860, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). 9. Nichols v. MoAmCo Corp., 311 So.2d 750, 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). 10. Security Title Guarantee Corporation of Balt......
-
Satellite digital radio searching for novel theories of action.
...Daniels, Levin and Creskoff v. Epstein, 393 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 907 (1979). See also Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860 (Fla. App. 1978). (130.) See, e.g., McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. D'Ascoli, 281 P.2d 966 (Ariz. 1955); R and W Hat Shop v. Sculley, 118 A. 55 ......