Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

902 P.2d 740, 11 Cal.4th 376, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 (1995)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
D
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

California Supreme Court
902 P.2d 740, 11 Cal.4th 376, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 (1995)

SC
Play video

Facts

In order to protect its sales interests in Japan, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota) (defendant) put a clause in its dealership agreements that prohibited dealers from selling Lexuses (a Toyota subsidiary) to customers outside the United States. John Della Penna (plaintiff) made a good profit buying Lexuses at retail and exporting them to Japan for resale. After finding out about Della Penna’s and other similar businesses, Toyota sent a letter to all of its Lexus dealers containing an “offenders” list of dealers involved in exporting Lexuses. The list included Della Penna and the letter stated that doing business with anyone on the “offenders” list could lead to sanctions from Toyota. Eventually Della Penna was not able to buy any more Lexus vehicles. Della Penna brought suit, alleging tortious interference with his economic relations. The trial court’s jury instructions included a requirement that Della Penna prove that Toyota’s alleged interference was wrongful. The jury found in favor of Toyota. The court of appeal reversed, holding that wrongfulness is not a required element of interference with prospective contractual relations. The Supreme Court of California granted Toyota’s petition for review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Arabian, J.)

Concurrence (Mosk, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Contracts
Torts
Unfair Competition

Key Terms