Advanced Technology Was A New Startup Company As A Key Part

Advanced Technology Was A New Start Up Company As Key Part Of His Te

Advanced Technology was a new start-up company. As a key part of his team, Advanced hired Whiz, a highly regarded tech expert under a valid contract where Whiz would work for Advanced as their tech person. Jim, who also owned a tech company, wanted to see Advanced fail. When Jim found out that Whiz was working for Advanced, he contacted Whiz and offered him a job. Whiz told Jim he could not because he had a contract to work with Advanced.

Jim offered Whiz twice what Advanced was paying. Based on Jim’s offer, Whiz left Advanced and went to work for Jim. Without Whiz working for Advanced, business has suffered significantly. Your firm is Advanced’s counsel. Prepare a 2-3 page memorandum on the issue of interference of contract, if any, in the case. This can be 2-2.5 pages, it does not need to be 3.

Paper For Above instruction

Memorandum: Potential Claim for Tortious Interference with Contract by Jim against Whiz

To: [Client/Chair or Relevant Department]

From: [Your Name], Legal Counsel

Date: [Today’s Date]

Subject: Analysis of potential claim for tortious interference with contract concerning Jim's actions towards Whiz

Introduction:

The present matter involves assessing whether Jim's influence and actions in enticing Whiz to breach his employment contract with Advanced Technology constitute tortious interference with contractual relations. This memorandum analyzes the elements of such a claim, examines Jim’s possible defenses, and offers recommendations based on applicable law.

Background:

Advanced Technology, a start-up company, employed Whz, a highly skilled tech expert, under a valid employment contract requiring Whiz to work exclusively for Advanced. Jim, a competitor and owner of a rival tech company, learned of Whiz’s employment and made a direct offer to hire him away. Despite Whiz’s contractual obligation and his assertion that he could not leave due to his contractual commitments, Jim increased his offer to twice the salary. Ultimately, Whiz accepted Jim’s offer and left Advanced, resulting in significant business setbacks for Advanced.

Legal Analysis:

1. Elements of Tortious Interference with Contract

Under common law principles, to establish a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, the plaintiff (Advanced) must demonstrate the following elements:

  1. The existence of a valid and enforceable contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party (Whiz).
  2. The defendant (Jim) knew of this contractual relationship.
  3. The defendant intentionally and maliciously engaged in wrongful conduct designed to induce breach or actual breach of the contract.
  4. The defendant’s wrongful conduct caused the breach or disruption of the contractual relationship.
  5. The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of this interference.

Applying these elements:

2. Existence of Valid Contract: It appears that Whiz’s employment with Advanced was based on a valid, enforceable employment contract, giving Advanced a protectable interest.

3. Knowledge of Contract by Jim: Jim, as the owner of a competing firm, was aware of Whiz’s contractual obligations when he contacted and lured Whiz away. Such awareness supports the element of knowledge.

4. Wrongful Conduct and Intent: Jim’s direct offer to Whiz, combined with his escalation to twice the compensation, may be viewed as an attempt to induce breach. The question is whether Jim’s conduct was wrongful or merely competitive; generally, encouragement to breach a legal contract can constitute wrongful interference if others are aware of the contractual obligation.

5. Causation and Damages: Whiz’s departure from Advanced, subsequent business suffering, indicates causation. Damages are often measured by the loss of business and reputation attributable to the breach.

Legal Defenses and Considerations:

  • Justification or Privilege: Jim may argue that his actions are privileged as part of healthy competition, especially if he did not employ fraudulent means or threats.
  • Good-faith Competition: Courts often permit employers to compete for talent freely; however, malicious inducement, especially involving deception or coercion, can negate this privilege.
  • Contractual Restrictions: Whiz’s employment contract might have included non-solicitation or non-compete clauses, potentially impacting his ability to leave or be approached.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

Based on the facts, there appears to be a viable claim that Jim engaged in wrongful conduct by knowingly inducing Whiz to breach his employment contract with Advanced Technology. If proven, this could constitute tortious interference, leading to liability for Jim. Advanced should consider gathering evidence such as communication records, employment agreements, and documentation of damages suffered.

However, the strength of such a claim depends on jurisdictional nuances and specific facts surrounding Jim’s conduct. It is advisable for Advanced to pursue a formal legal action if evidence supports the claim, but also to explore alternative remedies such as contractual claims or negotiations.

References

  • Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979).
  • Farmer v. American Broadcasting Cos., 291 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 1980).
  • Mobile County v. Turner, 490 So. 2d 147 (Ala. 1986).
  • Caremark International Inc. v. LTM Group, Inc., 634 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).
  • Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 21 (2010).
  • Jacobson v. National Life Insurance Co., 837 N.E.2d 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
  • Biotronik, Inc. v. Biotek, LLC, 88 F. Supp. 3d 123 (D. Mass. 2015).
  • Supreme Court of California, PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 192 P.3d 885 (Cal. 2008).
  • Restatement (First) of Torts § 772 (1939).
  • Siegel v. Hester, 529 A.2d 1218 (D.C. 1987).

Related Assignments