korea, della penna, lovesy, case briefs assignment help

User Generated

Wnzvyn1990

Business Finance

Description

I case briefs for 5 cases also mention specific and general rules for each case

Unformatted Attachment Preview

alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376 (1995) 902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 64 USLW 2237, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8056... 106k100In General 106k100(1)In General; Retroactive or Prospective Operation KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Disagreement Recognized by Data Based Systems Intern., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., E.D.Pa., September 26, 2001 Generally, decision of court of supreme jurisdiction overruling former decision is retrospective in its operation. 11 Cal.4th 376 Supreme Court of California. John DELLA PENNA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. S044053. | Oct. 12, 1995. 5 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Automobile wholesaler brought suit against American distributor of Japanese auto manufacturer, alleging violations of state antitrust statute and intention interference with economic relations. The Superior Court, Santa Clara County, No. 709470, Thomas P. Hansen, J., granted distributor’s motion for nonsuit with respect to antitrust claim and rendered judgment on jury verdict for distributor on interference claim, and wholesaler appealed. The Court of Appeal, 1994 WL 774509, reversed, and distributor petitioned for review. The Supreme Court, Arabian, J., held that plaintiff seeking to recover for alleged interference with prospective economic relations has burden of pleading and proving that defendant’s interference was wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Courts In General; Retroactive or Prospective Operation 106Courts 106IIEstablishment, Organization, and Procedure 106II(H)Effect of Reversal or Overruling 106k100In General 106k100(1)In General; Retroactive or Prospective Operation Decision requiring proof “wrongful act” as component of cause of action for interference with economic relations applied retroactively, where prospect of modification of rule could have fairly been foreseen by plaintiffs and legal profession at time case was tried. 383 Cases that cite this headnote Reversed and remanded with directions. Mosk, J., concurred in judgment and filed opinion. [3] West Headnotes (3) [1] Courts In General; Retroactive or Prospective Operation 106Courts 106IIEstablishment, Organization, and Procedure 106II(H)Effect of Reversal or Overruling Torts Improper Means; Wrongful, Tortious or Illegal Conduct Torts Pleading 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k218Improper Means; Wrongful, Tortious or Illegal Conduct (Formerly 379k10(1)) 379Torts © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376 (1995) 902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 64 USLW 2237, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8056... 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)3Actions in General 379k255Pleading (Formerly 379k26(2)) Plaintiff seeking to recover for alleged interference with prospective economic relations has burden of pleading and proving that defendant’s interference was wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. BAJI 7.82. All Citations 11 Cal.4th 376, 902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 64 USLW 2237, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8056, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,801 509 Cases that cite this headnote End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Follow by Miracle 7, Inc. v. Halo Couture, LLC, S.D.Fla., January 17, 2014 29 Cal.4th 1134 Supreme Court of California KOREA SUPPLY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION et. al, Defendants and Respondents. West Headnotes (36) [1] 30Appeal and Error 30XVIReview 30XVI(G)Presumptions 30k915Pleading 30k917Demurrers 30k917(1)In general No. S100136. | March 3, 2003. Broker for manufacturer that unsuccessfully bid for military equipment contract with the Republic of Korea brought action against competitor that was the successful bidder, asserting claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC209893, Brett C. Klein, J., sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed action. Broker appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal, and in an opinion by Moreno, J., held that: (1) nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits was not an available remedy in an individual action under the unfair competition law (UCL); (2) broker’s requested relief of disgorgement of the profits realized by competitor was not restitutionary; and (3) tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage did not require a plaintiff to plead that the defendant acted with the specific intent, or purpose, of disrupting the plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage. Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Opinion, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 417, superseded. Kennard, Acting C.J., filed concurring opinion. Werdegar, J., filed concurring opinion. Appeal and Error Demurrers When a case comes to the Supreme Court after the sustaining of a general demurrer, the Supreme Court accepts as true all the material allegations of the complaint. Cases that cite this headnote [2] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Source of prohibition or obligation; lawfulness 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(A)In General 29Tk133Nature and Elements 29Tk135Practices Prohibited or Required 29Tk135(2)Source of prohibition or obligation; lawfulness (Formerly 382k862.1 Trade Regulation) Unfair competition law (UCL) embraces anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. 57 Cases that cite this headnote Chin, J., filed concurring and dissenting opinion in which Brown, J., joined. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... [3] 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk370In general (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) Antitrust and Trade Regulation Source of prohibition or obligation; lawfulness 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(A)In General 29Tk133Nature and Elements 29Tk135Practices Prohibited or Required 29Tk135(2)Source of prohibition or obligation; lawfulness (Formerly 382k862.1 Trade Regulation) Unfair competition law (UCL) “borrows” violations from other laws by making them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. While the scope of conduct covered by the unfair competition law (UCL) is broad, its remedies are limited. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. 21 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Monetary Relief; Damages 101 Cases that cite this headnote [4] 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk388In general (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) Antitrust and Trade Regulation Source of prohibition or obligation; lawfulness 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(A)In General 29Tk133Nature and Elements 29Tk135Practices Prohibited or Required 29Tk135(2)Source of prohibition or obligation; lawfulness (Formerly 382k862.1 Trade Regulation) Under unfair competition law (UCL), a business practice may be deemed unfair even if not specifically proscribed by some other law. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. 173 Cases that cite this headnote [5] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Relief An action under the unfair competition law (UCL) is equitable in nature; damages cannot be recovered. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. 68 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Statutes Plain language; plain, ordinary, common, or literal meaning 361Statutes 361IIIConstruction 361III(C)Clarity and Ambiguity; Multiple Meanings 361k1107Absence of Ambiguity; Application of Clear or Unambiguous Statute or Language 361k1111Plain language; plain, ordinary, common, or literal meaning (Formerly 361k188) © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... If the language of a statute is unambiguous, the plain meaning governs. [10] 1 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Profits 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk391Profits (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) Statutes History of statute 361Statutes 361IIIConstruction 361III(F)Extrinsic Aids to Construction 361k1182Contemporary and Historical Circumstances 361k1184History of statute (Formerly 361k217.1, 361k215) Under the unfair competition law (UCL), an individual may recover profits unfairly obtained to the extent that these profits represent monies given to the defendant or benefits in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203. If statutory language is ambiguous, court may look to the history and background of the statute. 104 Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote [11] [9] Constitutional Law Intent of and Considerations Influencing Legislature 92Constitutional Law 92VIEnforcement of Constitutional Provisions 92VI(C)Determination of Constitutional Questions 92VI(C)3Presumptions and Construction as to Constitutionality 92k998Intent of and Considerations Influencing Legislature 92k999In general (Formerly 92k48(2), 92k48(1)) In ascertaining the Legislature’s intent, court attempts to construe a statute to preserve its constitutional validity, as the court presumes that the Legislature intends to respect constitutional limits. 3 Cases that cite this headnote Antitrust and Trade Regulation Profits 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk391Profits (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) Requested relief of disgorgement of the profits realized by competitor on the sale of military equipment to the Republic of Korea was not restitutionary, and thus such relief was not available to unsuccessful bidder’s broker in its action against competitor for violation of unfair competition law (UCL); broker did not have ownership interest in the money because competitor did not take any money or property directly from broker, and broker did not have vested interest in the money, but instead only expected a commission payment if unsuccessful bidder was awarded military equipment contract. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... he or she has an ownership interest. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203. 17203. 113 Cases that cite this headnote 101 Cases that cite this headnote [12] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Grounds and Subjects [14] 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk389Grounds and Subjects 29Tk389(1)In general (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) 390Trusts 390VIIEstablishment and Enforcement of Trust 390VII(B)Right to Follow Trust Property or Proceeds Thereof 390k358Identification of Property 390k358(1)In general (Formerly 390k91) A constructive trust requires money or property identified as belonging in good conscience to the plaintiff which can clearly be traced to particular funds or property in the defendant’s possession. An order for restitution under the unfair competition law (UCL) is one compelling a UCL defendant to return money obtained through an unfair business practice to those persons in interest from whom the property was taken, that is, to persons who had an ownership interest in the property or those claiming through that person. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203. 13 Cases that cite this headnote [15] 245 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Grounds and Subjects 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk389Grounds and Subjects 29Tk389(1)In general (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) The object of restitution under the unfair competition law (UCL) is to restore the status quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in which Trusts Identification of Property Antitrust and Trade Regulation Nature and form 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)5Actions 29Tk351Nature and form (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) An action under the unfair competition law (UCL) is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action; instead, the act provides an equitable means through which both public prosecutors and private individuals can bring suit to prevent unfair business practices and restore money or property to victims of these practices. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. 68 Cases that cite this headnote © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... [18] [16] 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(A)In General 29Tk133Nature and Elements 29Tk136Fraud; deceit; knowledge and intent (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) Antitrust and Trade Regulation Monetary Relief; Damages 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk388In general (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) To state a claim under the unfair competition law (UCL) one need not plead and prove the element of a tort; instead, one need only show that members of the public are likely to be deceived. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq. While any member of the public can bring suit under the unfair competition law (UCL) to enjoin a business from engaging in unfair competition, individuals may not recover damages. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203. 6 Cases that cite this headnote [19] [17] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Fraud; deceit; knowledge and intent 62 Cases that cite this headnote Antitrust and Trade Regulation Profits Antitrust and Trade Regulation Grounds and Subjects 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk391Profits (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) 29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation 29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies 29TIII(E)7Relief 29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages 29Tk389Grounds and Subjects 29Tk389(1)In general (Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation) Nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits is not an available remedy in an individual action under the unfair competition law (UCL). West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203. 108 Cases that cite this headnote Compensation for a lost business opportunity is a measure of damages and not restitution to the alleged victims of unfair competition. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203. [20] 9 Cases that cite this headnote Torts Pleading 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)3Actions in General 379k255Pleading © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... (Formerly 379k26(1)) Business relations or economic advantage, in general The tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage does not require a plaintiff to plead that the defendant acted with the specific intent, or purpose, of disrupting the plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage; instead, to satisfy the intent requirement for this tort, it is sufficient to plead that the defendant knew that the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of its action. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B. 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)5Questions of Law or Fact 379k271Business relations or economic advantage, in general (Formerly 379k28) A defendant’s intent, for purposes of claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, is a triable issue of fact. 70 Cases that cite this headnote [21] Torts Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy (Formerly 379k10(1)) The elements of the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional wrongful acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant. 423 Cases that cite this headnote [22] Torts 33 Cases that cite this headnote [23] Torts Contracts Torts Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy Torts Knowledge and intent; malice 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k212Contracts (Formerly 379k10(1)) 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy (Formerly 379k10(1)) 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k215Knowledge and intent; malice (Formerly 379k12) Although the intent requirement is the same for the torts of intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, these torts are distinct. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... 21 Cases that cite this headnote [26] [24] Torts Contracts 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)3Actions in General 379k251Nature and form of remedy (Formerly 379k23.1) 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k212Contracts (Formerly 379k12) A plaintiff who believes that he or she has a contract but who recognizes that the trier of fact might conclude otherwise might bring claims for both intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, so that in the event of a finding of no contract, the plaintiff might prevail on a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage. The tort of interference with contract is merely a species of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [25] Torts Contracts Torts Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k212Contracts (Formerly 379k12) 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy (Formerly 379k12) The existence of a contract does not mean that a plaintiff’s claim must be brought exclusively as one for intentional interference with contract, rather than intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. 16 Cases that cite this headnote Torts Nature and form of remedy 32 Cases that cite this headnote [27] Torts Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy Torts Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy (Formerly 379k26(1)) 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct (Formerly 379k10(1)) While intentionally interfering with an existing © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... contract is a wrong in and of itself, intentionally interfering with a plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage is not; therefore, to establish a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act. 267 Cases that cite this headnote [28] interference amounts actionable conduct. to independently 19 Cases that cite this headnote [30] Torts Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct (Formerly 379k10(1)) Torts Knowledge and intent; malice 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k215Knowledge and intent; malice (Formerly 379k10(1)) A defendant’s act is independently wrongful, so as to support claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, if it is unlawful, that is if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard. A defendant’s act is not independently wrongful, so as to support claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, merely because defendant acted with an improper motive. 197 Cases that cite this headnote 53 Cases that cite this headnote [31] [29] Torts Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy (Formerly 379k10(1)) The tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage is not intended to punish individuals or commercial entities for their choice of commercial relationships or their pursuit of commercial objectives, unless their Torts Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct (Formerly 379k10(1)) For a defendant’s act to be independently wrongful, so as to support claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, an act must be wrongful by some legal measure, rather than merely a product of an improper, but lawful, purpose or motive; disapproving PMC, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)2Particular Cases 379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in general (Formerly 379k10(3)) Inc., 45 Cal.App.4th 579, 603, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 877. 26 Cases that cite this headnote [32] Broker for unsuccessful bidder for military equipment contract with the Republic of Korea had an economic relationship with the unsuccessful bidder that contained the probability of future economic benefit to broker, and thus broker could state cause of action against successful bidder and its agent for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; broker had an agency relationship with unsuccessful bidder under which broker’s commission was fixed at 15 percent of the contract price, and broker’s commission would have exceeded $30 million if unsuccessful bidder had been awarded the contract. Torts Business relations or economic advantage, in general 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)2Particular Cases 379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in general (Formerly 379k10(3)) Allegations of broker for unsuccessful bidder for military equipment contract with the Republic of Korea, stating that agent for the successful bidder engaged in bribery and offered sexual favors to key Korean officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in order to obtain the contract from Korea, and that commissions paid by successful bidder to its agent exceeded the maximum allowable amounts established by the Act, satisfied requirement of an independently wrongful act, for purposes of stating claim against the successful bidder and its agent for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 30A(a)(1)(A), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78dd–1(a)(1)(A); Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, § 104(a)(1)(A, B), 15 U.S.C.A. § 78dd–2(a)(1)(A, B). 11 Cases that cite this headnote [33] Torts Business relations or economic advantage, in general 6 Cases that cite this headnote [34] Torts Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy (Formerly 379k10(1)) The tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage protects the expectation that the plaintiff’s economic relationship with a third party eventually will yield the desired benefit, not necessarily the more speculative expectation that a potentially beneficial relationship will arise. 129 Cases that cite this headnote 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003) 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825... [35] Torts Knowledge and intent; malice Torts Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k215Knowledge and intent; malice (Formerly 379k26(1), 379k10(1)) 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal conduct (Formerly 379k10(1)) [36] 379III(B)2Particular Cases 379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in general (Formerly 379k15) Allegations of broker for unsuccessful bidder for military equipment contract with the Republic of Korea satisfied proximate causation requirement, for purposes of stating claim against successful bidder and its agent for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; broker claimed that unsuccessful bidder would have been awarded the contract but for the interference of successful bidder and its agent, that unsuccessful bidder’s product was superior and its bid was significantly lower, and that broker lost a 15 percent commission as a direct result of successful bidder’s tortious acts. Intent element of an intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim requires a plaintiff to plead (1) that the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act, and (2) that the defendant acted either with the desire to interfere or the knowledge that interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of its action. All Citations 53 Cases that cite this headnote 29 Cal.4th 1134, 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2291 3 Cases that cite this headnote Torts Business relations or economic advantage, in general 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Lovesy v. Armed Forces Benefit Ass’n, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2008) 2008 WL 4856144 United States District Court, N.D. California. Brad LOVESY and Pacific Consolidated Investments, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. ARMED FORCES BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, the 5Star Association, 5 Star Financial, Llc, 5Star Financial Services Company, and 5Star Life Insurance Company; Ted Shuey, individually, doing business as the Shuey Agency, Inc., and TGS Group, Inc., Defendants. End of Document No. C 07-2745 SBA. | Docket Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48. | Nov. 7, 2008. All Citations Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4856144 © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Pacific Maritime Freight, Inc. v. Foster, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2010) KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Distinguished by Employees Trust Fund v. American Empire Building Corporation, N.D.Cal., July 27, 2015 2010 WL 3339432 United States District Court, S.D. California. PACIFIC MARITIME FREIGHT, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Sonia L. FOSTER; the Foster Group, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. No. 10–cv–0578–BTM–BLM. | Aug. 24, 2010. West KeySummary 1 Torts Business Relations or Economic Advantage, in General Torts Pleading 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)2Particular Cases 379k241Business Relations or Economic Advantage, in General End of Document 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)3Actions in General 379k255Pleading Contractor’s allegations that it incurred consequential losses after the negotiator told the government the negotiator was no longer representing the contractor were sufficient to plead intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. The contractor asserted that it had not yet lost any contracts with the government, but that it had incurred additional expenses in an effort to repair its relationship with the government. The negotiator had told the government the contractor was uncooperative, unreliable, and insolvent and suggested that it was being investigated. Cases that cite this headnote All Citations Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3339432 © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987) 729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Extend by Beckwith v. Dahl, Cal.App. 4 Dist., May 3, 2012 43 Cal.3d 64 Supreme Court of California. Harlan YOUST, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gerald LONGO, Defendant and Respondent. West Headnotes (11) [1] 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k219Injury and causation (Formerly 379k15) L.A. 32114. | Jan. 2, 1987. Racehorse owner whose horse was allegedly interfered with during harness race brought action against competing driver of another horse and other unnamed defendants, claiming that his horse was prevented from winning larger cash prize. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Donald W. Pike, J., sustained driver’s demurrer, and owner appealed. The Court of Appeal, 207 Cal.Rptr. 447, affirmed, and subsequently, vacating its initial opinion, affirmed with directions in 215 Cal.Rptr. 577. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, Lucas, J., held that: (1) allegations were not sufficient to state claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, regardless of whether conspiracy between competitor and noncompetitor existed; (2) cause of action would not lie for prospective economic loss which arose between competitors during sporting contest on theory of interference with prospective economic advantage, and even conspiracies formed between competitors or between competitors and noncompetitors would not justify liability for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in sports context; and (3) although Horse Racing Board had very broad power to regulate and discipline wrongful conduct which involved horse racing, statutes did not authorize awarding affirmative compensatory relief in form of compensatory or punitive tort damages. Affirmed. Reynoso, J., filed concurring opinion in which Bird, C.J., concurred. Grodin, J., filed concurring opinion. Torts Injury and causation Threshold causation requirement of proof that it is reasonably probable that lost economic advantage would have been realized but for defendant’s interference exists for maintaining cause of action for tort of negligent or intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. 96 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Torts Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations; expectancy (Formerly 379k10(1)) Elements for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are: economic relationship between plaintiff and some third party, with probability of future economic benefit to plaintiff, defendant’s knowledge of relationship, intentional acts on part of defendant designed to disrupt relationship, actual disruption of relationship, and economic harm to plaintiff proximately caused by acts of © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987) 729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025 defendant. 146 Cases that cite this headnote [5] [3] Torts Injury and causation Torts Business relations or economic advantage, in general 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)2Particular Cases 379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in general (Formerly 379k15) 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k219Injury and causation (Formerly 379k15) Racehorse owner’s allegation that competing driver interfered with his horse’s progress in harness race, thus resulting in lost opportunity to finish higher in money, was insufficient to state claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, regardless of whether conspiracy between competitor and noncompetitor might have existed; it was not reasonably probable that horse would have finished in better position. No compelling public policy exists which would justify ignoring threshold requirement of reasonable probability of economic gain in establishing cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage in context of sporting event; departing from Gold v. Los Angeles Democratic League, 49 Cal.App.3d 365, 122 Cal.Rptr. 732 (2 Dist.); Smith v. Superior Court, 151 Cal.App.3d 491, 198 Cal.Rptr. 829 (2 Dist.). 16 Cases that cite this headnote 12 Cases that cite this headnote [6] [4] Damages Certainty as to amount or extent of damage 115Damages 115INature and Grounds in General 115k6Certainty as to amount or extent of damage Damages should not be allowed in cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage arising out of competitive contest situation for value of lost chance of benefit, so as to permit plaintiff to recover value of lost prize discounted by probability of winning in absence of interference. 5 Cases that cite this headnote Pleading Amendment or Further Pleading After Demurrer Sustained 302Pleading 302VDemurrer or Exception 302k219Operation and Effect of Decision on Demurrer 302k225Amendment or Further Pleading After Demurrer Sustained 302k225(1)In general Demurrer to action for interference with prospective economic advantage based on events occurring during horse race was properly sustained without leave to amend, in light of speculative nature of outcome of horse race and public policy that no recovery should be available for economic lossoccasioned as result © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987) 729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025 of interference during sporting event. 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)2Particular Cases 379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in general (Formerly 379k10(1)) 5 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Torts Competition Even conspiracies formed between competitors, or between competitors and noncompetitors, do not justify imposing liability for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in sports context. 379Torts 379IIITortious Interference 379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations 379III(B)1In General 379k221Competition (Formerly 379k10(1)) Cause of action will not lie for prospective economic loss which arises between competitors during sporting contest based on interference with prospective economic advantage. 15 Cases that cite this headnote [10] 32 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Public Amusement and Entertainment Horse and dog racing 315TPublic Amusement and Entertainment 315TIILicensing and Regulation 315TII(A)In General 315Tk31Racing in General 315Tk35Administrative Agencies and Proceedings 315Tk35(2)Horse and dog racing (Formerly 376k3.10 Theaters and Shows) Conspiracy Nature and Elements in General Although Horse Racing Board has very broad power to regulate and discipline wrongful conduct which involves horse racing, statutes do not authorize Board to award affirmative compensatory relief such as compensatory or punitive tort damages, and Board thus lacks power to award damages to those who are injured by violation of horse racing law. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 19400 et seq. 91Conspiracy 91ICivil Liability 91I(A)Acts Constituting Conspiracy and Liability Therefor 91k1Nature and Elements in General 91k1.1In general (Formerly 91k1) There is no separate tort of civil conspiracy, but rather, conspirators must agree to do some act which is classified as “civil wrong.”. 15 Cases that cite this headnote 10 Cases that cite this headnote [11] [9] Torts Business relations or economic advantage, in general Public Amusement and Entertainment Horse and dog racing 315TPublic Amusement and Entertainment 315TIILicensing and Regulation 315TII(A)In General © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017 For Educational Use Only Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987) 729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025 315Tk31Racing in General 315Tk35Administrative Agencies and Proceedings 315Tk35(2)Horse and dog racing (Formerly 376k3.10 Theaters and Shows) Jurisdiction of Horse Racing Board was confined to disciplinary and regulatory matters, and thus, only remedy available from Board in case in which racehorse owner alleged competing driver interfered with his horse during harness race was to reorder finishing positions of competitors. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 19400 et seq. All Citations 43 Cal.3d 64, 729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025 3 Cases that cite this headnote End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Case Briefing
I.PARTIES
KOREA SUPPLY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION et.al, Defendants and Respondents
II.DATES
Argued March 3, 2003
III.COURT
Supreme Court of California
IV.FACTS
In 1995 and 1996, the plaintiff and respondents submitted bids competing so as to sell military
equipment to the Republic of Korea. The respondent’s bid was accepted while the plaintiff’s bid
was rejected. The plaintiff presents claims that there was unfair competition as well as
intentional interference in the business dealing. The plaintiff claims that the respondent contrived
shrewdly and intentionally and these acts violated the business professions codes and
consequently placed him (plaintiff) at an economic disadvantage. In line with that, the plaintiff
claims relief of disgorgement of profits that were gained.
V.ISSUE
The court focused on establishing whether there was violation of the Unfair Competition Law in
unison with establishing whether the plaintiff’s claims of an alter ego on the part of the

respondents were conclusive and factual. The court established the appellant to be a broker
within the presented business dealing.
VI.HOLDING
The court of appeal strived to establish if there was a penalty for violation of the Unfair
Competition Law. Further, the court noted that the legislature had not disgnated a title for the
statutory scheme that specifically related to business and professions codes.
VII.RULE
The court, without prejudice, established that the unsuccessful broker, who is the appellant, had
no ownership interest in the profits gained by the competitor as the competitor, the defendant,
did not violate any statutes and take the appellants money. Following the relevant policy
considerations, the court dismissed the appellant’s claims.


Case Bri...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags