D recruited P to be an independent contractor charged with making pick-ups and deliveries along a specified route. During initial negotiations that P was told he would have the ability to grow his business by buying routes from other contractors as they became available. P tried unsuccessfully to buy other routes over D's opposition. D eventually chose not to renew P's contract, and he sold his route. According to P, D made it impossible for the new owner to operate the route successfully. D refused to get insurance coverage for the new owner's vans, D failed to pay the new owner for more than a month, and D refused to allow the new owner to hire her own drivers. Eventually, the new owner defaulted on her payment obligations to P. P filed suit against D for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations. After a six-day trial, the jury returned a general verdict in P's favor and awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $680,161.00. D appealed arguing that the jury was improperly instructed as that particular claim was submitted to the jury on a theory of breach of contract as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. D pointed out that its written contract with P made no express representation that P would have a right to buy other routes, and therefore, the contract could not give rise to an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to a nonexistent term of the contract. The Court of Appeals agreed and remanded for a new trial. P 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.