Hamann v. Carpenter
937 F.3d 86
| 1st Cir. | 2019Background
- Hamann was retained as exclusive seller for a rare 1953 Ferrari owned by Scandurra (deposit paid) and procured a $10.5M buyer (Mecum) with a €2M deposit en route.
- Hamann first offered the car to Carpenter (agent for Wexner) for $15M; Carpenter declined but later, through Carpenter and Wexner, contacted the original owner Gnutti and offered €9M.
- Carpenter allegedly threatened to interfere with Scandurra’s relationship with Gnutti if Scandurra refused Carpenter’s offer; Scandurra then sold the Ferrari to Carpenter/Wexner and refused to pay Hamann his commission.
- Hamann sued Carpenter, Copley Motorcars, and Wexner for tortious interference with an existing contract, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, and violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 11.
- The district court dismissed all claims for failure to plausibly allege improper motive or improper means, treating the conduct as mere "tough negotiating." Hamann timely appealed.
- The First Circuit reversed as to tortious interference with an existing contract (pleading suffices on the alleged threat to destroy a third-party relationship), affirmed dismissal of the other tort and the Chapter 93A claim, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with existing contract: improper motive or means | Hamann: Carpenter knowingly induced Scandurra to breach by threatening harm to Scandurra’s relationship with Gnutti | Carpenter: Conduct was lawful competition / hard bargaining; Hamann’s allegation of ill will is conclusory | Reversed: Allegation that Carpenter threatened to destroy Scandurra’s third‑party relationship is sufficient at pleading stage to plausibly allege improper means; improper motive allegation was conclusory and not required to survive dismissal here |
| Causation/damages for lost commission | Hamann: He would have received commission if sale to Mecum closed; Carpenter’s interference caused loss | Carpenter: Sale to Carpenter produced more proceeds, so it was implausible that Hamann would have been paid anyway | Court: At pleading stage, it is plausible Hamann would have received at least some commission; dismissal on causation/damages not warranted |
| Tortious interference with advantageous business relationship (prospective expectancy) | Hamann: Also claims interference with a prospective Mecum–Scandurra deal or other expectancies | Carpenter: No distinct prospective relationship alleged; damages tied to the exclusive‑seller contract | Affirmed dismissal: Complaint fails to identify a separate prospective relationship and ties damages to the breached exclusive‑seller contract only |
| Chapter 93A territoriality | Hamann: alleges unfair conduct (implicitly actionable under ch. 93A) | Carpenter: §11 requires actions to occur primarily and substantially within Massachusetts; complaint lacks such allegations | Affirmed dismissal: Hamann failed to allege the conduct occurred primarily and substantially in Massachusetts and abandoned the argument on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- O'Donnell v. Boggs, 611 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2010) (elements of tortious interference under Massachusetts law)
- Tuli v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., 656 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2011) (improper motive can require actual malice or spite)
- United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 551 N.E.2d 20 (Mass. 1990) (desire to benefit oneself/principal does not alone show impropriety)
- G.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Falmouth Marine, 571 N.E.2d 1363 (Mass. 1991) (factors for assessing whether economic pressure is improper)
- Blackstone v. Cashman, 860 N.E.2d 7 (Mass. 2007) (definition and scope of interference with present or prospective contractual relations)