Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1994

Harding v. Ghaeenzadeh

Harding v. Ghaeenzadeh
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided June 24, 1994 · Goshorn, Peterson, Sharp
639 So. 2d 1018; 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6259; 1994 WL 277991 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Harding v. Ghaeenzadeh

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment awarding damages, entered after a jury verdict finding the appellants had intentionally interfered with a contract. Intentional procurement of the breach is an essential element of the appellees’ cause of action. Florida Tel. Corp. v. Essig, 468 So.2d 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). After a careful review of the record, we conclude that there was a complete absence of any proof that the appellants procured the contract’s breach. In fact, there was no proof that the asserted breach occurred. Accordingly, we agree that the trial court should have granted appellants’ motion for directed verdict.

REVERSED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.