DocketNumber: No. X07CV98-71254S CT Page 14277
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14276
Judges: BISHOP, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 10/26/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The Sixth Count is directed against the defendant Marjorie Feldman personally. By incorporating paragraphs from the First Count, Count Six alleges that Feldman was the president of the defendant Jason's Soda and that at all material times Feldman was acting as an agent of defendant Jason's Soda. Additionally, the Sixth Count contains the claims that she "caused the plaintiff's business relationship with Jason's Soda to be terminated," that she "sought to interfere with the plaintiff's business relationship with Jason's Soda for personal gain," and, that [t]he actions of defendant Feldman described above were intentional, wilful and malicious, and constituted tortuous interference with the plaintiff's employment relationship with Jason's Soda."
In support of their motion to strike this count, the defendants argue that since Feldman is identified by the plaintiff as the president of Jason's Soda, she can not be charged with having tortuously interfered with the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and Jason's Soda because, as a matter of law, an agent may not be charged with having interfered with a contract of the agent's principal.
As far as it goes, the defendants statement of law is accurate. "[I]t is well-settled that the tort of interference with contractual relations only lies when a third party adversely affects the contractual relations of two other parties. . . . [A]n agent acting legitimately within the scope of his authority CT Page 14278 cannot be held liable for interfering with or inducing his principal to breach a contract between his principal and a third party, because to hold him liable would be, in effect, to hold the corporation liable in tort for breaching its own contract. . . ." (Internal citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wellington Systems v. Redding Group,
In Appleton v. Board of Education,
Alternatively, the defendants move to strike the entire Amended Complaint on the basis that it contains improperly joined causes of action. The Amended Complaint consists of eight counts. Counts One through Six contain claims against the corporate and individual defendants relating to activities between and among them occurring prior to June 19, 1998. Counts Seven and Eight contain claims concerning activities of the defendant Jason's Soda, which are alleged to have commenced on or about July 1, 1998. In moving to strike the Amended Complaint, the defendants rely on Practice Book §
The short answer to the defendant's claim is that, in the court's view, all the allegations of the Amended Complaint relate to connected transactions. To try them together, or seriatim, should not create confusion and should enhance the efficient administration of justice. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint is denied.
BY COURT:
Bishop, J.