Bledsoe v. Watson

California Court of Appeal Jan 22, 1973 No. Civ. 39747Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a citizen's communication to a public official to prevent an allegedly illegal expenditure of public funds is privileged and constitutes a complete defense to a claim of wrongful interference with contractual relations. Consequently, the trial court properly sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend.

Issues

Whether a citizen's communication to a public official to prevent an allegedly illegal expenditure of public funds is privileged against a claim of interference with contractual relations.
Whether allegations of malice and misrepresentations of law defeat the defense of justification in an action for interference with contractual relations involving public funds.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our opinion section 526a provides a complete defense to the action on the face of the complaint.”

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Russell Bledsoe, an attorney, filed an action seeking compensatory damages of $3,700 and exemplary damages of $10,000 for “wrongful interference with contractual relations.” According to his complaint, he entered a written contract for legal services with the City of Seal Beach to investigate xirregularities in certain recall petitions and represent the city and individual members of the city council in a mandate proceeding brought by others to compel the city to hold an. election to recall members of the city council. The complaint charged that defendant Watson, acting as attorney for the other defendants, in writing maliciously persuaded the city treasurer by fraudulent represen

[108]

tations of law to repudiate the contract and refuse to disburse city funds to Bledsoe. The trial court sustained defendants’ general demurrer to the complaint and dismissed the action.

Bledsoe appeals.

Bledsoe’s complaint sought to plead a cause of action for damages for inducing breach of contract. The principal elements of such an action are the existence of a valid contract, defendant’s intent to induce a breach of the contract, and a breach resulting from defendant’s unjustifiable or wrongful conduct.

(Freed

Manchester Service, Inc.,

165 Cal.App.2d 186, 189-190 [331 P.2d 689].) This last element is the critical one here, for the issue on appeal is whether the complaint on its face showed justification for inducing a breach of contract.

As a general rule interference with contractual relations is justifiable when a person seeks to protect an interest of greater social value than that attached to the stability of the contract involved.

(Imperial Ice Co.

Rossier,

18 Cal.2d 33, 35 [112 P.2d 631].) Restatement, Torts, section 767, suggests that in determining justification a court must balance the social interest in the protection of the expectancy (contract) against the social interest in the preservation of the actor’s freedom of action (interference with another’s contract).

Bledsoe v. Watson

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief