DELLA PENNA V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. 11 Cal.4th 376, 902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 (1995) CASE BRIEF

DELLA PENNA V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

11 Cal.4th 376, 902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 (1995)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Toyota (D) appealed the judgment of the California Court of Appeals that reversed a favorable judgment entered by the superior court, arguing that the superior court properly modified the standard jury instruction to include a requirement that Penna (P) prove that D's conduct was wrongful as an element of his prima facie claim of intentional interference with economic relations.

FACTS: P, an automobile wholesaler doing business as Pacific Motors, brought an action for damages against D. P alleged that certain business conduct of D violated state antitrust statutes and constituted an intentional interference with his economic relations. D had barred the sale of the Lexus in Japan until after the American rollout. Even afterwards it would call the Japanese version the 'Celsior.' D then limited, reexports of the Lexus back to Japan. D put a 'no export' clause, requiring the dealer to agrees that it will not sell the cars for resale or use outside the United States. Some domestic Lexus units were being diverted for foreign sales to Japan. D warned its dealers and compiled a list of 'offenders.' Dealers were warned that their allocation may be lowered or it was even possible that a reevaluation of the dealer's franchise agreement might take place. P did a profitable business as an auto wholesaler purchasing Lexus automobiles and reexporting them to Japan for resale. By late 1990, P's sources began to dry up, primarily as a result of the 'offenders list.' Eventually all of P's sources refused to sell to him. P sued D. The anti-trust cause was dismissed but the tort cause of action went to the jury. The judge modified the standard instruction. The trial judge placed the burden of proof on P to prove that D's alleged interfering conduct was 'wrongful.' D got a 9 to 3 verdict. P motioned for a new trial and it was denied. P appealed. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the trial court's judgment. P was not required to establish 'wrongfulness' as an element of its prima facie case, and that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to have read the jury an amended instruction to that effect. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner