Morrison v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF AMERICA
| Decision Date | 23 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6689. |
| Citation | 204 F. Supp. 6 |
| Parties | Marks O. MORRISON, Plaintiff, v. The INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Mitchell & Forbes, Rocky Ford, Colo., for plaintiff.
Clarence L. Bartholic, Denver, Colo., for defendant.
The defendant seeks an order setting aside the verdict and judgment herein in favor of the plaintiff and directing the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant, The International Harvester Company, or, in the alternative, an order granting a new trial. The contentions are that:
First, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment in the amount of $7,520.00. It is said that the Court erred in refusing to grant the defendant's motion at the conclusion of plaintiff's case, which motion was renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence. It is said that the plaintiff failed to establish that defendant unlawfully interfered with the contractual relations of the plaintiff.
The second point is that there is a dearth of evidence to establish that the plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of the verdict, or in any amount, and it is urged that the verdict must be set aside because of this.
The complaint herein alleges that in the year 1959, and previously, plaintiff was a farm machinery and equipment dealer for the defendant at Lyman, Nebraska, and that in June, 1959, he notified the defendant of his intent to sell his implement business. A further allegation is that he received, in October, 1959, an offer in the amount of $32,000.00 from responsible buyers, but that the defendant, on December 1, 1959, intentionally and unlawfully interfered with this contract of sale by refusing to consent to the assignment of the plaintiff's franchise. Defendant denied all these allegations.
The case was submitted to the jury under instructions which described the claim and which required the plaintiff to prove that defendant intentionally or purposefully interfered with his business relations with a third person whereby the consummation of a contract with the third person was prevented.
The elements of interference, intent, and actual prevention of the business relationship, were described and defined in the instructions. It was also pointed out to the jury that the franchise contract between plaintiff and defendant provides that it cannot be assigned, which provision gave to the defendant a right to determine whether it would issue a franchise to a prospective purchaser. The jury was further instructed that this contractual provision would give to defendant the privilege to prevent the assignment unless the jury found that defendant had held out to plaintiff that it would assign the franchise to a responsible buyer as a result of which plaintiff changed his position in reliance thereon and as a consequence of such reliance on the promise of the defendant thus made, defendant was precluded from asserting the nonassignability of the franchise.
The plaintiff purchased the farm implement business in question in the year 1952 for the sum of $22,000.00. Previously, plaintiff had been employed as a zone manager for International in the particular area surrounding Lyman, Nebraska. His dealership at Lyman proved very successful until 1959, at which time he commenced a supplemental business on his leased premises. At some time in early 1959, plaintiff decided that he might sell his equipment business and in June, 1959, he notified Wilson, the Zone Manager of International, of his intention to do so. Wilson discussed with him the possibility of finding a suitable buyer and, in fact, after that Wilson talked to prospective buyers within the area. In fact, in one instance, Wilson asked for a financial statement to be submitted to International from such a prospective buyer. In October, 1959, plaintiff found a buyer who was financially responsible. This buyer furnished a financial statement reflecting that he had adequate capital to continue the operation as well as to buy the business. The amount agreed upon was $32,000.00 — this included plaintiff's home at Lyman, Nebraska.
International knew of the proposed transaction, but it was not until December 1, 1959, that International suddenly decided not to consent to the assignment. At that time the District Manager, in company with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barlow v. International Harvester Co.
...a net loss of $86,000. This evidence was competent on the issue of Upper Valley's special damages. Cf. Morrison v. International Harvester Co. of America, 204 F.Supp. 6 (D.Colo.1962), appeal dismissed, 306 F.2d 492 (10th Cir. 1962). In light of the fact that Upper Valley was eligible for a ......
-
Zelinger v. Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company
...States District Court for the District of Colorado has cited this section of the Restatement with approval. Morrison v. International Harvester Co. of America, D. Colo. 204 F.Supp. 6. Comment i following Section 766 of the Restatement states in "One does not induce another to commit a breac......
-
Clark v. Figge
...of goodwill of business); Shell Oil Co. v. State Tire & Oil Co., 126 F.2d 971 (6th Cir.) (loss of profits); Morrison v. International Harvester Co., 204 F.Supp. 6 (D. Colo.) (difference in sale price and liquidation value of business). As to whether other kinds of damage can ever be recover......
-
Thompson Trading v. ALLIED BREWERIES OVERSEAS
...thus giving rise to a strong inference of waiver. Plaintiff relies on, and this Court accepts, the reasoning in Morrison v. International Harvester Co., 204 F.Supp. 6 (D.Colo.), appeal dismissed, 306 F.2d 492 (10th Cir.1962). In Morrison, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintif......