## Facts

- Fred Lowell, Jr. owned Lowell Freight Lines, Inc., a common carrier that provided delivery and distribution services to Mother’s Cake & Cookie Co. for over five years.
- Mother’s was Lowell Freight Lines’ major customer and allegedly accounted for a large share of its income.
- Lowell sought to sell his company and received multiple offers, including a $200,000 offer conditioned on continuation of the Mother’s business relationship.
- Lowell alleged Mother’s told prospective purchasers it would end its business with Lowell Freight Lines if Lowell sold the company.
- After these statements, prospective buyers withdrew their offers.
- Mother’s allegedly then purchased Lowell Freight Lines for $17,400.
- Lowell sued, claiming Mother’s intentionally interfered with his prospective economic advantage by depressing the company’s market price to acquire it cheaply.

## Issues

1. Whether the pleadings stated a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, or whether the claim could be defeated on demurrer based on alleged justification or privilege.
2. Whether the pleadings stated claims under the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Practices Act.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim.
- The court held the complaint adequately alleged intentional interference with a probable economic relationship and resulting harm, and it was improper to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend based on privilege/justification not established on the face of the pleading.
- The court affirmed dismissal (without leave to amend) of the Cartwright Act and Unfair Practices Act causes of action.
- Disposition: affirmed in part and reversed in part.

## Legal Principles

- Liability may arise for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage even absent an existing enforceable contract, where interference targets a probable economic relationship and causes harm.
- At the pleading stage, an interference claim generally may not be dismissed on justification or privilege grounds unless the complaint’s own allegations affirmatively establish that defense.
- Whether interference was justified or privileged is commonly a fact-dependent defense not suitable for resolution on demurrer when the complaint alleges conduct that could be improper in motive or means.
- Statutory antitrust and unfair-practices claims require allegations of the type of market-related competitive harm addressed by those statutes, not solely harm arising from a single firm’s dealings over a single business transaction.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim to proceed because the complaint alleged purposeful disruption of a likely sale and resulting economic harm, and it did not show a conclusive privilege on its face; however, the court left intact the dismissal of the Cartwright Act and Unfair Practices Act claims for inadequate statutory allegations.


Lowell v. Mother's Cake & Cookie Co., 79 Cal. App. 3d 13, 144 Cal. Rptr. 664 (Ct. App. 1978)