Tortious Interference Is The Act Of Intentionally

Tortious Interference is The Act Of Intentionally

Tortious Interference is the act of intentionally interfering with someone's business. Intentional interference may directly interfere with a business deal, interfere with day-to-day operations, or spread false claims about the business. Tortious interference with a contract occurs when a person, who is not a party to the original contract, influences one of the contracting parties to breach their contractual duty. This situation applies only where there is a written contract between two or more parties. Tortious interference is a civil matter handled by the courts and hinges on intent; if interference occurs without intent to cause harm, a claim is unlikely to succeed. If a person intentionally interferes with a third-party business operation, they can be held liable for tortious interference.

This analysis demonstrates how courts evaluate claims of tortious interference through relevant case law, notably Florian Greenhouse, Inc v. Cardinal IG Corporation and cases concerning intentional interference with contractual relations. These cases offer crucial legal language and standards necessary for understanding this tort and applying it to specific scenarios.

In the provided case involving Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc., Aromatic Farms, and MJGreen House, Inc., a potential tortious interference claim arises. Moonshine has an existing exclusive contract with Aromatic Farms to supply "Triple-A" moonshine-infused coffee beans at a stipulated price and minimum quantity. MJGreen House, Inc., a competitor, informs Moonshine that Aromatic is withholding 10% of its production to sell to Moonshine’s rival, Star Tracks Inc., at a lower price. Subsequently, Moonshine cancels its contract with Aromatic and signs with MJGreen instead.

The issues in this case include whether MJGreen House, Inc. can be held liable for tortious interference with Aromatic's contract, whether the information provided was true or false, and what Aromatic must establish to hold MJGreen liable. Relevant law emphasizes that tortious interference requires intentional and wrongful conduct, harm or potential harm to the contractual relationship, and awareness or knowledge of the contract by the interfering party.

A key question is whether MJGreen House, Inc. knew about the existing contract and whether they intentionally induced Moonshine to breach it. Under tort law, the falsehood or truthfulness of the statement could impact the legal analysis. If the statement was true, it could be more challenging to establish malice. Conversely, if false, it could reinforce wrongful conduct. Aromatic must prove that MJGreen intentionally interfered, acted unlawfully or improperly, and that the interference caused damages, such as lost profits or opportunity.

Aromatic likely has standing to sue MJGreen for tortious interference, assuming the company can demonstrate the elements of the tort: that MJGreen’s conduct was intentional, wrongful, and caused damages. The contractual relationship between Aromatic and Moonshine, combined with the economic expectation of the deal, constitutes a reasonable economic interest that MJGreen’s actions jeopardized.

To establish a prima facie case, Aromatic must show that (1) a valid contract existed; (2) MJGreen knew of this contract; (3) MJGreen intentionally engaged in wrongful conduct aimed at causing a breach; (4) such conduct was a substantial factor in breaching the contract; and (5) Aromatic suffered damages as a result. Evidence of MJGreen’s knowledge of the contract, its statements or actions aimed at inducing breach, and the resulting breach are critical.

In this scenario, facts such as MJGreen’s direct communication with Moonshine, knowledge of Aromatic’s contractual rights, and the inducement to breach would support liability. If MJGreen knew that Aromatic had an exclusive supply agreement and still informed Moonshine of alleged withholding, this could satisfy the knowledge requirement. The damages Aromatic claims include lost profits from the breach and potential lost future business.

In conclusion, under the law of tortious interference, if Aromatic can substantiate that MJGreen’s actions were intentional, wrongful, and causally linked to the breach, liability is probable. The case underscores the importance of intent, knowledge, and wrongful conduct in tortious interference claims, illustrating how courts analyze and apply the legal standards to real-world business disputes.

References

1. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corporation, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997).
2. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979).
3. Cal. Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 1900: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.
4. Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. E. (1988). Torts (10th ed.). West Publishing.
5. Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, E. J. (2017). The Law of Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.
6. Levine, A. (2015). Tort Law - Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Aspen Publishing.
7. American Jurisprudence 2d, Tortious Interference § 111 (2d Ed. 2010).
8. McCarthy, J. (2018). Business Torts and Unfair Competition. Wolters Kluwer.
9. Hollander, F. (2012). Tort Law for Paralegals. Cengage Learning.
10. Stone, J. S. (2008). Business Litigation: The Evolving Doctrine of Tortious Interference. Business Law Journal, 23(3), 134-142.