Section 7.4 Valid Business Relationship or Expectancy

• Library: Tort Law 2016

B. (§7.4) Valid Business Relationship or Expectancy

It is well settled that a plaintiff’s business expectancy must be reasonable and valid. Although the law provides greater protection for an existing contract, it also affords protection against unjustified interference with reasonable expectancies of commercial relations, even when an existing contract is lacking. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 766 (1979); Rosen v. Alside, Inc., 248 S.W.2d 638 (Mo. 1952).

The Supreme Court of Missouri broadened the concept of a valid business expectancy in Bell v. May Department Stores Co., 6 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Mo. banc 1999), and made it easier for plaintiffs to establish the "business expectancy" element.

In Bell, the plaintiff purchased a ceiling fan from Famous Barr with a store credit card. Id. at 873. Mr. Bell later determined that the ceiling fan was defective, disputed the charges in writing, and did not make payments on his store account relating to the fan purchase. Id. Before this incident, Mr. Bell had a flawless credit history with Famous Barr for more than 20 years. Id. at 874. As a result of the nonpayments relating to the fan, Famous Barr reported Bell’s account as delinquent to various credit-reporting agencies. Id. at 875. This report negatively impacted Bell’s overall credit rating. Id. at 874.

On numerous occasions, Famous Barr indicated to Bell that it would correct the negative credit report, but Famous Barr never rectified the matter with the credit-reporting agencies. Id. Bell later applied to the EAB (European American Bank) for a TWA credit card, hoping to earn frequent flier miles with his purchases. Id. EAB refused to issue the credit card based on the derogatory information reported by Famous Barr. Id.

Relying on Haas v. Town & Country Mortgage Co., 886 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994), and other cases, the circuit court entered summary judgment against Bell. Bell, 6 S.W.3d at 873. On appeal, Famous Barr argued that Haas mandated summary judgment in its favor because Bell did not have an established business relationship with EAB at the time Famous Barr reported the negative credit rating. Id. at 877. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and remanded, holding that "a reasonable jury could find [that the plaintiff] had [a] valid credit expectancy based on his longstanding clean credit history, and his efforts to keep it clean. This holding is consistent with the rule that no formal contract is required for valid credit expectancy." Id.

...