trial court correctly refused to direct verdict for defendant where substantial evidence showed that defendant competitor employed sharp and overreaching actions to interfere with plaintiff's business expectancy
How later courts described this case
- trial court correctly refused to direct verdict for defendant where substantial evidence showed that defendant competitor employed sharp and overreaching actions to interfere with plaintiff's business expectancy
- competitor’s privilege defense did not shield the defendant from liability, where the defendant, among other things, gained information about prices of the plaintiffs product by “concealing] from [the plaintiff] the fact that it was competing against him”
- sharp dealing or overreaching can interfere with a business expectancy
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. It is undisputed that the architect was not authorized to create a business expectancy for Schueck by assuring Schueck that its product would be used. A business expectancy never existed. Schueck had only a hope that its product would be used. This hope was mostly based on the fact that the architect had given Schueck an advantage by using its product to write the specifications.