 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
K & K Recycling11/14/2003
this issue.
Similarly, we reject K&K;s contention that the court erred in not granting it summary judgment on its claim that Seuffert's relocation of his camp, his placement of a berm on the dredge access road, and his refusal to move his camp all constitute acts of repudiation and thus breach of the contract because they are " tatements and/or acts which add terms and are inconsistent with the terms and performance of the contract." K&K;claims Seuffert relocated his camp and refused to move it in order to preclude movement of the dredge, whereas Seuffert claims he had no such intent and that other suitable areas were leased by someone else. Because genuine issues of material fact clearly existed concerning Seuffert's intent in making the camp and berm decisions, the superior court did not err in denying K&K;summary judgment. The issue properly went to the jury, who reasonably ruled that Seuffert's camp and berm placements constituted breaches of the contract.
C. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Granting AGC and Seuffert Summary Judgment on K&K;s Tort Claims
K&K;alleged in its amended complaint that Seuffert's actions and AGC's failure to intervene amounted to tortious interference with K&K;s contractual rights and prospective business opportunities. K&K;also contended that AGC and Seuffert interfered with and precluded K&K;s recovery of the dredge, constituting conversion and trespass. K&K;further maintained that Seuffert and AGC were wrongfully withholding the Old Town's contents. K&K;challenges the court's grant of summary judgment to AGC and Seuffert, and its denial of summary judgment to K&K; on these tort claims. If any of its tort claims survive, K&K;also challenges the court's dismissal of its punitive damages claim. We affirm the superior court's rulings.
1. Tortious Interference with a Contract
To establish a claim of tortious interference with a contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) an existing contract between it and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of the contract and intent to induce a breach; (3) breach; (4) wrongful conduct of the defendant causing the breach; (5) damages; and (6) absence of privilege or justification for the defendant's conduct. A party to a contract cannot be liable for tortiously interfering with that contract. Because AGC is undeniably a party to the contract, this claim cannot lie against AGC. Given that the assignment essentially gave Seuffert the rights of a party, Seuffert was not a true outsider to the contract, and thus this claim also could not lie against him.
2. Tortious Interference with a Prospective Business Opportunity
To establish a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business opportunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) an existing prospective business relationship between it and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of the relationship and intent to prevent its fruition; (3) failure of the prospective relationship to culminate in pecuniary benefit to the plaintiff; (4) conduct of the defendant interfering with the prospective relationship; (5) damages caused by the defendant; and (6) absence of privilege or justification for the defendant's conduct.
K&K;alleges that it had prospective opportunities to market the dredge as a tourist attraction and that Seuffert and AGC knew of and intentionally interfered with these opportunities. The focus of K&K;s argument really seems to be that Seuffert's concealment of the equipment and facilities in the Old Town, and Seuffert's and AGC's refusal to recognize K&K;s right to them, have precluded K&K;from operating the dredge as a touris
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|