Imperial Ice Company v. Wayne Rossier et al.

Supreme Court of California
18 Cal. 2d 33 (1941)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An action will lie for unjustifiably inducing a breach of contract, and a competitor is not justified in inducing a breach of contract simply to further their own economic advantage at the expense of the other party.

Facts:

S. L. Coker sold his ice distributing business, including its goodwill, to California Consumers Company.
As part of the sales agreement, Coker signed a covenant not to compete, agreeing not to engage in the business of selling or distributing ice in a specified territory.
Imperial Ice Company (plaintiff) acquired the business from the successor of California Consumers Company, including the right to enforce Coker's covenant.
W. Rossier, J. A. Matheson, and Fred Matheson (defendants) owned a competing ice company.
The defendants began supplying ice to Coker for the purpose of him selling it.
Coker, supplied by the defendants, subsequently began selling and distributing ice in the territory where he had promised not to compete, in violation of his contract.
The defendants induced Coker to violate his contract so that they could sell ice to him at a profit.

Procedural Posture:

Imperial Ice Company sued S.L. Coker, W. Rossier, J.A. Matheson, and Fred Matheson in California superior court (trial court).
The complaint sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from their respective actions.
The defendants Rossier and the Mathesons filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a cause of action against them.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment in favor of Rossier and the Mathesons.
Imperial Ice Company, the plaintiff, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.

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 cause of action for inducing breach of contract exist against a defendant who, for their own economic advantage, intentionally persuades a third party to violate a valid non-compete agreement with the plaintiff?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Traynor

Yes. An action for inducing breach of contract is maintainable against a defendant who intentionally and unjustifiably causes a third party to violate their contract with the plaintiff. While free competition is a socially important interest, it does not justify a competitor actively and affirmatively inducing the breach of an existing contract to secure an economic advantage. The court establishes that the stability of contractual relations is generally of greater social importance than competitive freedom. Previous California case law suggesting that interference is not actionable if the means are lawful is distinguished and its dicta disregarded, thus aligning California with the majority rule that recognizes the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations. Because the complaint alleges that the defendants intentionally and actively induced Coker to breach his non-compete agreement for their own profit, it states a valid cause of action.

Analysis:

This decision formally established the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations in California, aligning the state's jurisprudence with the majority of American jurisdictions. It clarifies that while competitive business practices are protected, this protection does not extend to actively inducing a competitor's contracting party to breach an existing agreement. By prioritizing contractual stability over the freedom of competition in this context, the ruling set a crucial precedent for business torts, defining the boundaries of permissible competitive behavior and providing a remedy for businesses harmed by such interference.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Imperial Ice Company v. Wayne Rossier et al. (1941)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature