Carvel Corp. v. Noonan
818 N.E.2d 1100, 785 N.Y.S.2d 359, 3 N.Y.3d 182 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's conduct motivated by legitimate economic self-interest does not constitute tortious interference with prospective economic relations unless that conduct is a crime, an independent tort, or engaged in for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm on the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Carvel Corporation historically distributed its ice cream products exclusively through its franchised stores.
- Facing a business decline in the early 1990s, Carvel reversed its long-standing policy and created a "supermarket program" to sell its products in supermarkets, which competed directly with franchisees.
- Most franchisees did not participate in the program, which required them to pay substantial license fees and upgrade their stores.
- As part of the program, Carvel sold its products to supermarkets at lower prices than those available to franchisees.
- Carvel also issued coupons that were redeemable at supermarkets but not at franchisee stores.
- Some of these coupons were printed on bags that Carvel required the franchisees to use and distribute to their own customers.
- The franchise agreements varied: older "Type A" agreements limited Carvel's ability to open competing stores nearby, while newer "Type B" agreements expressly allowed Carvel to sell products through other distribution channels like supermarkets.
- From 1993 to 2000, the supermarket program grew while many franchised stores went out of business.
Procedural Posture:
- Several franchisees sued Carvel Corporation in federal court, alleging various claims.
- At the trial court level, juries returned verdicts in favor of three franchisees on their claims for tortious interference with business relations.
- Carvel Corporation, as the defendant-appellant, appealed the verdicts to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit, finding New York law on the issue to be uncertain, certified two questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a franchisor's conduct, undertaken for its own economic benefit, constitute tortious interference with its franchisees' prospective economic relations when that conduct is not a crime, an independent tort, or aimed solely at harming the franchisees?
Opinions:
Majority - R.S. Smith, J.
No. A claim for tortious interference with non-binding prospective economic relations requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant's conduct was 'more culpable' than what is required for interference with an existing contract. As a general rule, the defendant's conduct must amount to a crime or an independent tort, or be undertaken for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm. Here, Carvel's motive was legitimate economic self-interest—to reverse business declines—not solely to harm the franchisees. The conduct did not constitute 'wrongful means' such as violence, fraud, or misrepresentation. The alleged economic pressure was directed at persuading customers with attractive pricing, which is legitimate competition, not wrongful coercion. Such competitive disputes between a franchisor and franchisee should be governed by their contract, not by tort law.
Concurring - Graffeo, J.
No. While the result is correct, the majority applies the wrong standard. The 'wrongful means' test is appropriate for market competitors, but a franchisor and franchisee are more like economic partners, where the franchisor holds a dominant position. Therefore, the more flexible 'improper conduct' standard from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B should apply. This standard considers multiple factors, including the parties' relationship and motives. However, even under this standard, Carvel's conduct was not improper. It was motivated by a legitimate need to ensure its survival, its actions were largely contemplated by the franchise agreements (especially the Type B contracts), and the evidence of coercive tactics like the coupon bags was insubstantial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the threshold for plaintiffs in New York to succeed on a claim of tortious interference with prospective economic relations. It clarifies that conduct motivated by economic self-interest is presumptively lawful, even if it has a devastating competitive impact on another party. The ruling strongly favors resolving business disputes, particularly within franchise relationships, through contract law—including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing—rather than expanding tort liability. This precedent makes it much more difficult for franchisees and other business partners to sue for competitive practices that are not explicitly forbidden by their agreements or independently unlawful.
Unlock the full brief for Carvel Corp. v. Noonan