Question: White Plains Coat & Apron Co. is a New Yorkbased linen rental business. Cintas Corp. is a nationwide business that rents similar products. White Plains
White Plains Coat & Apron Co. is a New York–based linen rental business. Cintas Corp. is a nationwide business that rents similar products. White Plains had five-year exclusive contracts with some of its customers. As a result of Cintas’s soliciting of business, dozens of White Plains’ customers breached their contracts and entered into rental agreements with Cintas. White Plains demanded that Cintas stop its solicitation of White Plains customers. Cintas refused. White Plains filed a suit in a federal district court against Cintas, alleging wrongful interference with existing contracts. Cintas argued that it had no knowledge of any contracts with White Plains and had not induced any breach. The court dismissed the suit, ruling that Cintas had a legitimate interest as a competitor to solicit business and make a profit. White Plains appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
(a) What are the two important policy interests at odds in wrongful interference cases? When there is an existing contract, which of these interests should be accorded priority?
(b) The U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asked the New York Court of Appeals to answer a question: Is a general interest in soliciting business for profit a sufficient defense to a claim of wrongful interference with a contractual relationship? What do you think? Why?
Step by Step Solution
3.40 Rating (172 Votes )
There are 3 Steps involved in it
a The New York Court of Appeals recognized that at bottom as a matter of policy courts are called upon to strike a balance between two valued interest... View full answer
Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts
Document Format (1 attachment)
111-L-B-L-T-C (21).docx
120 KBs Word File
