Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

Tort Law: No Claim for Tortious Interference Where Defendant Has Contractual Relationship With Plaintiff

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers

| Last reviewed
Legally Reviewed

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.

Fact-Checked

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. 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.

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.

Cook v Little Caesar Enterprises, 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.

Was this helpful?

Copied to clipboard