Bar at the Yard v. Friends Family

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for Hiro 88 on Longwells’ tortious interference with contract and business expectancy claims. The contract claim failed because Longwells presented no evidence that Hiro 88 induced or otherwise caused the landlord to breach the exclusivity provision, and the expectancy claim failed because the evidence showed only valid competition rather than improper means. The court also held that any error in excluding portions of Longwells’ affidavit was harmless. No separate opinions were filed.