{"id":37917,"date":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","date_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/tort-law-no-claim-for-tortious-interference-where-defendant-has.html"},"modified":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","modified_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","slug":"tort-law-no-claim-for-tortious-interference-where-defendant-has","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/litigation-disputes\/tort-law-no-claim-for-tortious-interference-where-defendant-has.html","title":{"rendered":"Tort Law: No Claim for Tortious Interference Where Defendant Has Contractual Relationship With Plaintiff"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n | Last reviewed\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff-franchisee brought suit against Defendant-franchisor, claiming, inter alia, that Defendant tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's attempt to sell his franchised restaurant to a prospective buyer. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant on the tortious interference count, holding that Michigan law permits a claim for tortious interference only if the defendant is a "third party" to the transaction. The district court agreed with Defendant that it was not an "outsider," but rather was a contracting party vis-a-vis the franchisee. Any challenge to the franchisor's refusal to consent to the sale of the franchise was actionable, if at all, as a breach of contract.<\/p>

Cook v Little Caesar Enterprises<\/u>, Civ No. 95-40234, ED Mich, 8\/7\/97, Gadola, J. (dkt #106 – 42 pages)This article was written by Mark A. Goldsmith, a partner in our Litigation Department, and previously appeared in the October 1997 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal.<\/p><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff-franchisee brought suit against Defendant-franchisor, claiming, inter alia, that Defendant tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s attempt to sell his franchised restaurant to a prospective buyer. The district court granted summary judgment …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":true,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"corporate_categories":[6523,6522,6520],"class_list":["post-37917","corporate","type-corporate","status-publish","hentry","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes__civil-litigation__business-torts","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes__civil-litigation","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate\/37917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/corporate"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"corporate_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate_categories?post=37917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}