Bell vs. May Dep's Stores Co., 6 S..W.3d 871 (MO. 1999) - Essay Example

Consequently, in his correspondence with the store, Bell informed the store about the defect in the fan and conveyed to them his intention to not to pay for the fan. The store responded to the grievance by informing to Bell their intention of replacing the defective fan, however, in actuality they never did so. Moreover, in the subsequent credit card statements Bell continued to receive past due notices, late fee and finance charges. Eventually the store intimated to Bell its intention of forwarding a negative report to the credit agencies.

Yet, later on both parties agreed on a settlement agreement as per which the store promised to Bell that they will delete all the negative reports from Bell’s history. However, it was not to be so. The store relied on a computerized billing system that automatically generated dunning notices and billing statements and forwarded the negative reports to the credit agencies. In 1994, Bell submitted an application to the European American Bank (EAB), for soliciting a TWA credit card. However, Bell’s application for availing a TWA credit card was rejected because of the negative reports sent by the store to the credit agencies. . So, later on Bell sued the store, alleging that the store intentionally meddled with Bell’s credit expectancy by extending faulty and wrongful information pertaining to Bell’s credit history to the credit rating agencies, among other claims. 3. The issue that The Supreme Court of Missouri was required to decide upon was as to whether credit expectancy of a person or an organization constitutes an element of the law pertaining to intentional interference with business expectancy.

The issue before the court was to decide as to whether interference with valid credit expectancy amounted to intentional interference with business expectancy. The court was also required to envisage the test or criteria that established the charge of interference with business expectancy in this case. 4. In the case under consideration, the court held that to ascertain valid credit expectancy, only the establishment of a ‘valid’ or ‘reasonable ‘hope’ tended to be a sufficient criteria or test.

The respondent in this case argued that to establish the possibility of credit expectancy on the part of the applicant, it was necessary that one had a pending credit application. However the court set aside this line of argument. The court ruled that the respondent had genuinely resorted to a tortuous interference with the applicant’s credit expectancy and the applicant was liable to claim the commensurate damages. 5. In this case The Supreme Court of Missouri reasoned that ‘expectancy’ is something that is hoped for or expected.

It is not a must that to ascertain valid credit expectancy, one needs to have a contract or application in place. The mere expectation or possibility of getting credit establishes that the intended expectancy