P, an automobile wholesaler doing business as Pacific Motors, brought an action for damages against D. P alleged that certain business conduct of D violated state antitrust statutes and constituted an intentional interference with his economic relations. D had barred the sale of the Lexus in Japan until after the American rollout. Even afterward it would call the Japanese version the 'Celsior.' D then limited, reexports of the Lexus back to Japan. D put a 'no export' clause, requiring the dealer to agrees that it will not sell the cars for resale or use outside the United States. Some domestic Lexus units were being diverted for foreign sales to Japan. D warned its dealers and compiled a list of 'offenders.' Dealers were warned that their allocation may be lowered or it was even possible that a reevaluation of the dealer's franchise agreement might take place. P did a profitable business as an auto wholesaler purchasing Lexus automobiles and re-exporting them to Japan for resale. By late 1990, P's sources began to dry up, primarily as a result of the 'offenders list.' Eventually, all of P's sources refused to sell to him. P sued D. The anti-trust cause was dismissed, but the tort cause of action went to the jury. The judge modified the standard instruction. The trial judge placed the burden of proof on P to prove that D's alleged interfering conduct was 'wrongful.' D got a 9 to 3 verdict. P motioned for a new trial, and it was denied. P appealed. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the trial court's judgment. P was not required to establish 'wrongfulness' as an element of its prima facie case, and that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to have read the jury an amended instruction to that effect. D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.