## Facts

- William Buckaloo, a licensed real-estate broker, previously held an exclusive listing on Mildred Benioff’s property (“Dark Gulch”) that expired without a sale.
- In 1972, Benioff posted a “For Sale—Contact Your Local Broker” sign; Buckaloo alleged it functioned as an open listing inviting local brokers to procure buyers.
- Prospective buyers Virginia Arness and her daughter, accompanied by Cecil Johnson (a salesman for broker Ferne Goodwin), visited Buckaloo seeking coastal investment property.
- The group asked about “the property with the sign,” and Buckaloo provided detailed information about Dark Gulch, including its strengths and weaknesses and pricing considerations.
- Johnson asked whether Buckaloo cooperated with other brokers; Buckaloo said he did.
- Buckaloo assisted the group with accommodations; they left promising to return but did not.
- Buckaloo notified Benioff that he claimed to be the procuring cause of the Arness group and requested that she refer them to him if contacted directly.
- Buckaloo later learned Benioff sold Dark Gulch to the Arness group without Buckaloo’s participation, and he sued the vendor, purchasers, and related real-estate defendants for, among other claims, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (loss of commission expectancy).

## Issues

1. Whether a broker’s reasonably probable expectancy of a commission can support a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded the elements of that tort against the purchasers and related real-estate defendants to survive demurrer.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part.
- It held the third cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage was adequately pleaded against Johnson, Goodwin, Arness, and related defendants; the demurrer should not have been sustained as to that claim.
- It affirmed the dismissal as to the remaining causes of action against the demurring defendants.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the interference claim.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage protects a probable future economic benefit, not only vested contract rights.
- A plaintiff must plead: (1) an economic relationship with a probability of future benefit, (2) defendant’s knowledge of the relationship/expectancy, (3) intentional acts aimed at disrupting it, (4) actual disruption, and (5) resulting economic harm.
- Liability requires interference that is wrongful by a measure beyond the interference itself; more than ordinary competition is required.
- At the demurrer stage, pleaded facts are taken as true and the complaint is construed liberally to determine whether a claim is stated.
- A broker’s probable commission expectancy may qualify as a protected prospective economic advantage when facts show the broker’s efforts created a reasonably likely commission opportunity and defendants knowingly bypassed it through wrongful conduct.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that a real-estate broker’s reasonably probable commission expectancy can constitute a protected prospective economic advantage and held that allegations of knowing, intentional, and wrongful circumvention were sufficient to proceed past demurrer on the interference claim.


Buckaloo v. Johnson, 537 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1975)