The appellant appealed from a directed issue trial arising out of a dispute over the right to provide cable television services to apartment buildings after the landlord terminated its long-standing arrangement and entered into an exclusive agreement with a competitor.
The Court of Appeal held that the landlord's relationship with the appellant was governed by a contract that permitted termination, and the landlord's lawful exercise of that contractual right could not ground the appellant's tort claim.
Because the contractual component was dispositive, it was unnecessary for the trial judge or the appellate court to determine the broader intentional interference with economic relations issue.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
