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

P had contracted to purchase a vacant lot next to Wal-Mart. They then entered into negotiations to lease the lot to Fleming Foods. Wal-Mart decided it wanted the lot and told Fleming about its desires and that if it could not get the lot, it would close its store and more elsewhere. Fleming decided not to lease, and eventually, Wal-Mart moved too. P sued Wal-Mart (D) on a charge of wrongful interference with P’s prospective contractual agreement. The court issued instructions related to the reasonable probability of Fleming leasing without Wal-Mart interference and whether the interference was justified. P got the verdict for $1,500,000. D appealed.

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.