Huynh

Huynh v. Vu

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 1183·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1396·2003 Daily Journal DAR 10269·4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8249
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 2003A098568California7,396 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal follows a jury verdict for respondent Khai Huynh (Broker) in his action against Thuan Nguyen Vu (Seller) for a commission on Seller’s sale of a parcel of commercial real property in Oakland (the Property) to Bill Phua (Buyer), and against Seller’s husband, appellant Cuong Tat Vu (Husband), who was alleged to have acted as Seller’s agent in connection with the transaction, and to have intentionally interfered with Seller’s performance of the contract.

In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that Husband was entitled to assert the common law manager’s privilege in defense of Broker’s tortious interference claim, since the evidence at trial could support the conclusion that the predominant motive for Husband’s advice to Seller was to further Seller’s interest and not the self-interest of Husband. Accordingly, the failure to instruct the jury on this defense was reversible error.

H.

FACTS

Broker is a licensed real estate broker. In 1998, Buyer requested Broker’s help in buying a commercial property in Oakland. Broker knew that the Property had been on the market in 1997, and that no buyer had been found before the listing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.