|
1434 Members of a law firm's executive committee, who terminated a partner privately and without raising their voices, and who subsequently assigned an employee to guard the terminated partner until he left the building, did not thereby act outrageously; the plaintiff's former law partners, who made neutral, non-negative, statements to others regarding the reason for plaintiff's separation from the firm, did not thereby act wrongfully such as to incur liability for interference with prospective business advantage.CitationHELLER v PILLSBURY... (Terminated Partner) 50 CA4 1367 [See: State Rubbish Collectors v Siliznoff 38 C2 330; Agarwal v Johnson 25 C3 932; Della Penna v Toyota 11 C4 376, T/AT 12/95; REST(2) 46(com.d)]
|
|
