Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges
44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 486, 52 S.W.3d 711 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's interfering conduct was independently tortious or unlawful.
Facts:
- Harry W. Sturges, III, and his partners (plaintiffs) contracted with Bank One to purchase a commercial property known as Tract 2, adjacent to a Wal-Mart store on Tract 1.
- The purchase contract was contingent on the plaintiffs securing a lease with Fleming Foods and obtaining Wal-Mart's approval for a site plan modification, as required by existing covenants (ECRs).
- Sturges sought approval for the modification from a Wal-Mart property manager, who initially indicated Wal-Mart would approve it.
- Simultaneously, another Wal-Mart department was planning to acquire Tract 2 to expand its own store and instructed its realtor, Tom Hudson, to pursue the property.
- Upon learning of the conflict, Wal-Mart's management decided to prioritize its expansion, deny Sturges's modification request, and attempt to acquire Tract 2 for itself.
- Wal-Mart's realtor, Hudson, informed a Fleming Foods manager that if Wal-Mart could not acquire Tract 2 for its expansion, it would close its adjacent store on Tract 1 and relocate.
- Because Fleming Foods considered the adjacent Wal-Mart essential to its business plan, it cancelled its letter of intent with Sturges.
- Consequently, the plaintiffs terminated their contract to purchase Tract 2, and Wal-Mart later purchased the property and expanded its store.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Sturges and his partners sued Wal-Mart in a Texas district court (trial court) for tortious interference and breach of contract.
- A jury found Wal-Mart liable on both claims, awarding $1 million in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages on the interference claim.
- At the plaintiffs' election, the trial court entered judgment on the interference claim.
- Both parties appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the actual damages award but remanded for a new trial on punitive damages.
- Wal-Mart, as petitioner, was granted review by the Supreme Court of Texas (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 defendant's conduct constitute tortious interference with a prospective business relationship if it is motivated by competition and harms the plaintiff, but is not independently tortious or unlawful?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hecht
No. A defendant's conduct does not constitute tortious interference with a prospective business relationship merely because it is competitive and causes harm; the conduct must be independently tortious or unlawful. The court abandoned the prior vague standards of 'malice' and 'wrongfulness' for this tort, holding that liability requires proof that the defendant's conduct would be actionable under a recognized tort (e.g., fraud, defamation, assault) or was otherwise unlawful. Legitimate competition is not actionable, even if a competitor's actions are 'sharp' or 'unfair.' Here, Wal-Mart's statement that it would relocate if it could not expand was not proven to be a fraudulent misrepresentation but rather a lawful expression of its competitive business strategy. Therefore, its conduct was not independently tortious, and it cannot be held liable for tortious interference.
Concurring - Justice O'Neill
No. While agreeing with the judgment, this opinion argues the majority should not have created a new legal standard in dicta. The case should have been resolved solely by applying a 'no-evidence' standard of review to the jury charge that was actually given. The charge required the plaintiffs to prove Wal-Mart acted 'with the purpose of harming Plaintiffs.' Because Wal-Mart's purpose was to compete for the property, not to harm the plaintiffs through tortious means, and because there was no evidence that Wal-Mart's statement about relocating was false or fraudulent, the plaintiffs failed to meet their evidentiary burden under the existing charge.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the tort of interference with prospective business relations in Texas. It replaces vague, subjective standards like 'malice' with a clear, objective requirement that the defendant's conduct must be independently tortious or unlawful. This ruling strengthens legal protections for competitive business practices, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue competitors for actions that, while harmful, are not illegal or tortious in their own right. The decision aligns Texas law with a modern trend to limit the scope of economic torts to prevent them from chilling legitimate competition.
Unlock the full brief for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges