Cahaba Seafood, Inc. v. Central Bank of the South
| Decision Date | 07 September 1990 |
| Citation | 567 So.2d 1304 |
| Parties | CAHABA SEAFOOD, INC., et al. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE SOUTH, et al. 89-634. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Stephen D. Heninger of Heninger, Burge and Vargo, Birmingham, for appellants.
Michael L. Edwards, Patricia McGee Dodson, and Kelly King Kelley of Balch & Bingham, Birmingham, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Central Bank of the South on claims by the appellants, Cahaba Seafood, Inc., and Tom and Frances Greenhalgh, for damages based on alleged intentional interference with business relations, fraud and misrepresentation, negligence and/or wantonness, and economic duress. The plaintiffs had also alleged breach of contract; however, that claim is still pending before the trial court. With regard to the claims pertinent to this appeal, the trial judge certified the judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P. We affirm.
Tom and Frances Greenhalgh moved to Birmingham with the intention of opening a retail and wholesale seafood business. In order to finance their business venture, they formed a corporation, Cahaba Seafood, Inc., and sought a construction loan for their new building. Originally, they obtained a loan from National Bank of Commerce; however, they eventually borrowed $275,000 through Central Bank and the Small Business Administration to pay off their loan at National Bank and to meet the cost overruns of their building. Thereafter, Cahaba Seafood sought a line of credit from Central Bank in order to set up and maintain working capital for the new business. A line of credit was established with the following pertinent provisions:
Central Bank contends that $25,000 was the maximum line of credit offered by it and that it had agreed to lend an amount totalling up to 80 percent of the accounts receivable until the loan reached the $25,000 limit. Plaintiffs, however, contend that the agreement provided for a $25,000 credit line and that, in addition, Central Bank was to lend an amount equal to up to 80 percent of the accounts receivable. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the Wynfrey Hotel should have been allowed to make 30-day payments under the "weekly terms or longer" provision of the contract instead of being forced to pay on a weekly basis as required by Central Bank.
First, the plaintiffs argue that the summary judgment should not have been entered as to their claim alleging intentional interference with business relations. We have written:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southland Bank v. A & a Drywall Supply
...do so." Defendants' brief at 33. In support of their argument, the defendants cite Armstrong, supra, and Cahaba Seafood, Inc. v. Central Bank of the South, 567 So.2d 1304 (Ala. 1990). In Armstrong, we rejected the argument by ABS that a duty to "properly process" the loan request arose apar......
-
Givens v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc.
...economic duress as a defense and was permitted to avoid the contract. Burns's action sounds in tort."); Cahaba Seafood, Inc. v. Cent. Bank of the S., 567 So. 2d 1304, 1306 (Ala. 1990) ("[W]e have heretofore refused to recognize economic duress as an independent tort. We reaffirm that refusa......
-
Armstrong Business Services, Inc. v. AmSouth Bank
...The Court finds that no duty devolved on the Bank outside the confines of the alleged agreement. See Cahaba Seafood[, Inc.] v. Central Bank of the South, 567 So.2d 1304 (Ala.1990). "Finally, it is claimed [in count eight] that the damages complained of were occasioned by the Bank's negligen......
-
Joe Cooper & Associates, Inc. v. Central Life Assur. Co.
...concluded that the plaintiffs' intentional interference claims were foreclosed by this Court's holding in Cahaba Seafood, Inc. v. Central Bank of the South, 567 So.2d 1304 (Ala.1990). In Cahaba Seafood we held that a claim alleging intentional interference was not available when a party to ......
-
Economic Duress: a Poor Excuse for Non-performance
...as a substantive tort, leaving it to be invoked only as an affirmative defense. See Cahaba Seafood, Inc. v. Central Bank of the South, 567 So.2d 1304, 1306 (Ala. 1990); Guillot v. Beltone Electronics Corp. of Chicago, 540 So. 2d 648, 650 (Ala. 1988). In Clark v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co.,......