Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 December 1986 |
Docket Number | INC,No. 85-2853,ANNHEUSER-BUSC,85-2853 |
Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2656,498 So.2d 683 |
Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2656 The GENET COMPANY, John E. Genet and Max Genet, Jr., Appellants, v., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and George W. Chesrow and Douglas H. Stein, Miami, for appellants.
Howrey & Simon and Peter E. Moll, Washington, D.C., Neblett & Sauer and John N. Moore, III, Key West, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs (Genets) from an adverse summary judgment denying their claim against Annheuser-Busch, Inc. (A-B) for tortious interference with a business relationship. We affirm based upon the following analysis.
Plaintiffs Max Genet, Jr. and John E. Genet allegedly entered into a contract with Lopez Wholesale Liquors, Inc. (Lopez), an A-B wholesaler in Key West, Florida, to purchase its A-B wholesalership. Under the terms of the Annheuser-Busch Wholesaler Equity Agreement (Equity Agreement), the transfer of ownership of any A-B wholesalership was subject to the approval of A-B. Plaintiffs recognized this from the beginning, and their contract with Lopez was expressly conditioned upon A-B's approval of Lopez's transfer of its A-B wholesalership. Exercising its contractual right under the Equity Agreement, A-B disapproved Lopez's proposed transfer of its A-B wholesalership to the Genets. Lopez is not a party to this action and does not complain of or contest A-B's decision. The plaintiffs filed suit, claiming that A-B interfered with their contract with Lopez by disapproving the proposed transfer. Their complaint alleged that A-B approved the sale of the wholesalership pursuant to the terms of the Equity Agreement, 1 and then on the day of closing, wrongfully repudiated its approval of the sale. Plaintiffs alleged that once A-B approved the sale pursuant to these terms, thereafter, A-B was not authorized to interfere with the performance of the contract with Lopez.
Under Florida law, a cause of action for tortious interference does not exist against one who is himself a party to the business relationship allegedly interfered with. Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981). Because plaintiffs' agreement with Lopez was specifically conditioned upon A-B's approval, as a matter of law, A-B cannot be liable for tortious interference with their agreement. Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hospital District, 403 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (, )review denied, 412 So.2d 463 (Fla.1982); United of Omaha Life Insurance Co. v. Nob Hill Associates, 450 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA) (, )review dismissed, 458 So.2d 273 (Fla.1984). A-B had the contractual right, as specified in the Equity Agreement, to approve or disapprove any proposed transfer of Lopez's wholesalership. Thus, A-B was not a disinterested third party to plaintiffs' agreement. Moreover, what the Genets sought, through their agreement with Lopez, was to obtain an A-B wholesalership and enter into an Equity Agreement with A-B. Thus, A-B was the source of the business opportunity which plaintiffs sought. The tort of willful interference with a business relationship does not exist where the defendant was the source of the business opportunity allegedly interfered with. A.R.E.E.A., Inc. v. Goldstein, 411 So.2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Likewise, there can be no claim where the action complained of is undertaken to safeguard or promote one's financial or economic interest. Bruce v. American Development Corp., 408 So.2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d at 1225. Here, A-B, acting in its own best interest, had the right not to approve the proposed transfer. Accordingly, its actions taken to safeguard its economic interests are non-actionable. Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d at 1225.
Plaintiffs concede that under the Equity Agreement, A-B had the right to approve or disapprove Lopez's proposed transfer of the wholesalership. However they allege that summary judgment was improper because A-B...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc.
...does not exist against one who is a party to the business relationship allegedly interfered with." See Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986). Plaintiff relies on paragraphs 10, 18, 56, 57, 58, 60, and 61 of the Complaint to satisfy the requirements for p......
-
Hall v. Burger King Corp.
...interfered with. Consequently, no claim for tortious interference exists against BKC. Id. at 6-7. Accord Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); United Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Assocs., 450 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, s......
-
In re Sunrise Securities Litigation
...Under Florida law, one who is a party to a contract cannot be liable for interference with that contract. Genet Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). Therefore, initially the determination as to whether a cause of action for unlawful interference with a con......
-
Cook v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.
...relationship with GMC via the prospective franchise agreement." Id. at 620, 772 P.2d 271. Similarly, in Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So.2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), where plaintiffs entered into an agreement with a wholesaler to purchase the wholesalership and the wholesale agreeme......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...Properties, Ltd., 616 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied , 626 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1993). 2. Genet Company v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So.2d 683, 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“an essential element of waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege.”). 3. Caraffa v. C......
-
Contract cases
...914, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Knight Enterprises, Inc. v. Green , 509 So.2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc ., 498 So.2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). 11. Party to the Contract: A cause of action for interference does not exist against one who is himself a party to ......