No Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage.

A beer importer disapproved of an agreement whereby one of its distributors agreed to sell its beer distributorship to another distributor. When the importer, pursuant to its contractual right, disapproved of the sale, the beer distributorship was sold to another distributor. The scorned distributor brought an action against the importer for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The trial court denied the importer’s motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court granted extraordinary relief, stating that for the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, courts require that the alleged interference must have been wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Quoting from Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, [63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29], the court said it must be “unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.” The appellate court rejected the scorned buyer from relying on Business and Professions Code sections 25000.9, 23300, or fraudulent concealment as the basis for an alleged wrongful act by the importer, and held the importer was entitled to summary judgment. (Crown Imports, LLC v. Sup. Ct. (Classic Distributing & Beverage Group, Inc.) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; February 19, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1395, [168 Cal.Rptr.3d 228].)