Hales v. Ashland Oil, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 February 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76--62,76--62
• Citation: 342 So.2d 984
• Parties: Alvah G. HALES, and Sea Trawl, Ltd., Appellants, v. ASHLAND OIL, INC., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 984

342 So.2d 984

Alvah G. HALES, and Sea Trawl, Ltd., Appellants, v.ASHLAND OIL, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 76--62.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 1, 1977.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1977.

Hal P. Dekle, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman & Greer and Phillip E. Walker, John L. Ashworth, Marion, Ohio, Aubrey V. Kendall, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C.J., NATHAN, J., and CHARLES CARROLL(Ret.), Associate Judge.

NATHAN, Judge.

Alvah G. Hales and Sea Trawl, Ltd., plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal from an order dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice.Plaintiffs had brought suit alleging that defendants had tortiously interfered with contractual rights and advantageous business relationships of the plaintiffs.Plaintiffs had further alleged that they were third party beneficiaries of certain contracts which the defendants had allegedly breached.

This cause arises out of incidents related in Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So.2d 714(Fla.3d DCA1972), cert. denied, 285 So.2d 18(Fla.1973).In that case, plaintiff Pickard had sued Ashland Oil, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries, Cobia Boats, Inc., and Modern Fiber Glass, Inc., and Harold L. Slama, who was an officer of both subsidiaries, for deceit and breach of contract.We found there that the parties had embarked upon a joint ventureship for the production and sale of fiberglass shrimp trawlers.Ashland and its subsidiaries were to manufacture hulls for the trawlers and provide financing, while Pickard and his wholly owned company were to outfit the hulls and promote sales of the completed vessels.Id. at 721, n. 6.We ultimately affirmed a jury verdict for Pickard upon his claim that the Ashland interests had fraudulently represented that Pickard would have first right to outfit and sell the trawlers so that defendants could take advantage of Pickard's expertise in outfitting the hulls while they were secretly preparing to outfit and market the vessels themselves.

Plaintiffs in the instant case alleged that the Ashland group had tortiously interfered with plaintiffs' business relationship with Pickard, whereby plaintiffs were to purchase 200 trawlers from Pickard.Plaintiffs also asserted that they were third party beneficiaries to the agreements between Pickard and the defendants, in that the defendants knew or should have known that Pickard would be induced to procure orders for finished vessels from persons such as the plaintiffs.The trial court found that these allegations failed to state a cause of action.We agree.

It is true that Florida recognizes a separable and independent tort of malicious interference with contractual rights or advantageous business relationships.SeeDade Enterprises v. Wometco Theaters, Inc., 119 Fla. 70, 160 So.2d 209(1935);John B. Reid and Associates, Inc. v. Jimenez, 181 So.2d 575(Fla.3d DCA1965);Franklin v. Brown, 159 So.2d 893(Fla.1st DCA1964).However, as we noted in Reid and Associates, supra at 577, one of the elements of this tort is that 'in order To secure an advantage, the defendant, by fraud, induces plaintiff's business associate to act in a way which destroys plaintiff's business relationship.'(Emphasis added.)

While the plaintiffs herein contend that they fit within this category, an examination of the factual situations surrounding...