 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
White Plains v. Cintas: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=New York Court of Appeals | |court=New York Court of Appeals | ||
|citation=867 N.E.2d 381 | |||
|date=April 26, 2007 | |date=April 26, 2007 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=* White Plains Coat & Apron Co. = "White Plains" = "White" = a New York company = a linen rental business | |||
* Cintas Corp. = "Cintas" = a national company serving many businesses = a company that rented linens | |||
* Cintas lured the customers of White away by offering lower rates for linen rentals | |||
* Many business customers of White would break their contracts in order to switch over to Cintas | |||
|procedural_history=*White sued Cintas | |||
*White stated that Cintas was liable for [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/intentional-interference-with-contractual-relations tortious interference with contract] under New York state law | |||
*Cintas won a summary judgment in the district court | |||
|issues=Is a generalized economic interest in soliciting business for profit a defense to tortious interference if the tortfeasor has no previous relationship with the party under contract? | |||
|arguments=* White argued that Cintas knew that the customers had contracts with White. | |||
* Cintas claimed that it wasn't aware of the contracts the customers had with White. | |||
|holding=No; if a tort-feasor has no existing relationship with a party, then the tortfeasor 's generalized <u>economic interest</u> in soliciting business is not a defense to tortious interference with the party's contract. | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/white-v-cintas | |link=https://casetext.com/case/white-v-cintas | ||
Latest revision as of 20:37, February 1, 2024
| White Plains v. Cintas | |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 867 N.E.2d 381 |
| Date decided | April 26, 2007 |
Facts
- White Plains Coat & Apron Co. = "White Plains" = "White" = a New York company = a linen rental business
- Cintas Corp. = "Cintas" = a national company serving many businesses = a company that rented linens
- Cintas lured the customers of White away by offering lower rates for linen rentals
- Many business customers of White would break their contracts in order to switch over to Cintas
Procedural History
- White sued Cintas
- White stated that Cintas was liable for tortious interference with contract under New York state law
- Cintas won a summary judgment in the district court
Issues
Is a generalized economic interest in soliciting business for profit a defense to tortious interference if the tortfeasor has no previous relationship with the party under contract?
Arguments
- White argued that Cintas knew that the customers had contracts with White.
- Cintas claimed that it wasn't aware of the contracts the customers had with White.
Holding
No; if a tort-feasor has no existing relationship with a party, then the tortfeasor 's generalized economic interest in soliciting business is not a defense to tortious interference with the party's contract.
Judgment
Reversed
Resources
