date:Aug 15, 2012
ontract law, thus invalidating Eurekas unjust enrichment claim.
Eureka was also unable to support its claim that Nestl had hurt its business (via tortious interference) when it began selling direct to Eurekas customers rather than offering the company PET bottled spring water at below-market prices according to the court.
Judge Harris Hartz wrote on behalf of a three-person judging bench:Eureka has failed to show why Nestl did not have the same right as any other seller of goods to treat all