Legal Opinion
Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 1, 1980PublishedCited by 434 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Jones, J.
As a general rule, if no improper means have been employed, a competitor may not be held liable for intentional interference with a contract that is unenforceable for lack of mutuality.
In January, 1968 plaintiff Guard-Life Corporation entered into a contract with Kokusan, a Japanese manufacturer of locks, which provided that Guard-Life would be Kokusan’s exclusive distributor in the United States and Canada with respect to locks described in a schedule attached to the contract, production samples of which were to be subject to prior approval by Guard-Life. The…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Schwartz v. Public AdministratorNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Hornstein v. PodwitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Duane Jones Co. v. BurkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- A. S. Rampell, Inc. v. Hyster Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Gilbert v. BurnstineNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by434 opinions
- Carvel Corp. v. NoonanNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1987
- Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Alexander & Alexander of New York, Inc. v. FritzenNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
429 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.