Wrongful/Tortious Interference Act

A Wrongful/Tortious Interference Act is an intentional tort of unjustified interference into a business relationship or formal agreement with the intention of causing harm or economic loss to the party involved.

• Context:
  • It can occur in various areas of law, including tort law, contract law, property law, and intellectual property law.
  • It can involve actions such as [[Defamation, invasion of privacy, tortious interference with a contract or business relationship, or infringement of intellectual property rights.
  • ...
• Example(s):
  • In tort law, when a company spreads false rumors about a competitor to harm their business relationships and reputation.
  • In contract law, when a third party induces a breach of contract between two parties for their own benefit.
  • When a legal professional deliberately causes their firm to lose a legal case to prevent fulfilling an express condition of hiring contractor X.
  • When a business sabotages another company's supply chain to disrupt its ability to fulfill contracts.
  • ...
• Counter-Example(s):
  • Legitimate Competition between businesses.
  • When a company outbidding a competitor for a contract in a fair and open tender process.
  • When an individual posts an honest and non-defamatory review about a business.
  • ...
• See: Tortious Interference, Defamation, Infringement, Intellectual Property Law.

---

---

References

2023

• Web Chatbot
  • Wrongful interference, also known as tortious interference, is a legal concept solidly based on the principle of contractual relationships. It encompasses incidents where someone deliberately disrupts a business relationship or a formal agreement with the intention of causing harm—usually economic—to the party involved. This harm can manifest as lost profits, broken contract negotiations, or lost potential business opportunities. As these cases are predominantly governed by common law tort and contract principles, the accusations of wrongful interference can lead to lawsuits where compensatory or punitive damages may be rewarded, granted that sufficient proof of economic distress is instrumental in each case.

    There are two general categories of wrongful interference: contract interference and business relations interference. Contract interference necessitates the intentional disruption of a determined business agreement; individuals cannot be found guilty of this form if the act was accidental or non-coercive. The other type, business relations interference, relates to informal agreements or expectations of future agreements. Proving this form can be more complicated due to the often informal or undocumented nature of these arrangements. However, the condemning factor in both types revolves around identifying the harm caused due to the intentional act of interference.

    Wrongful interference can also relate to goods. In this scenario, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 comes into play, addressing various unlawful actions against goods, such as conversion, trespass, or negligence that result in damage. This act covers cases where the possession rather than the ownership of goods is given priority.

    The factors required to successfully make a claim for wrongful interference can fluctuate between jurisdictions, emphasizing the need for professional legal consultation. Victims of such instances can seek legal aid and support through platforms such as UpCounsel’s marketplace, where they can connect with skilled lawyers.

2019

• (Maggard et al, 2019) => JAMIE H MAGGARD, Christopher C Tillery, and Fritz Riesmeyer. (2019). “[What Constitutes “Wrongful Conduct” in Interference with Contractual or Economic Relations?]." American Bar Association Website. May 06, 2019
  • QUOTES:
    • Courts have struggled with the question of when competition for business or employees crosses the line into an actionable tort.
    • When analyzing whether there is liability for economic hard in interference cases, counsel should focus on the conduct and what types of conduct are considered wrongful.
    • Recent cases and the Third Restatement are helpful in defining what conduct will be found to be wrongful.
  • NOTES:
    • The concept of wrongful conduct in legal disputes involving interference with contractual or economic relations has evolved significantly. In the past, distinguishing between lawful competitive behavior and tortious conduct was challenging, with the 1979 Second Restatement of Torts broadly characterizing such interference as "improper conduct." However, this definition was often too vague to provide clear legal guidance. Recognizing the need for clarity, recent case law has been moving toward a more refined definition, which is crystallized in the forthcoming Third Restatement of Torts. This document offers more specific criteria for what constitutes wrongful conduct, making it easier to identify when competitive actions cross the line into illegality.
    • The Third Restatement of Torts provides a detailed framework, distinguishing between two distinct forms of interference: one with contracts and the other with economic expectations. Section 16 of the Restatement outlines the requirements for an act to be considered wrongful in the context of contractual interference, focusing on the defendant's intent and actions. Similarly, Section 17 deals with economic relations, demanding a demonstration of an independent legal wrong to establish a claim. This demarcation helps legal professionals discern between aggressive business strategies and genuine tortious interference. By moving away from the ambiguous term "improper" and redefining what constitutes "privilege," the Third Restatement aims to restrict the scope of wrongful conduct, thus limiting the grounds for claims and clarifying the instances when interference might be permissible as part of normal competitive conduct.

---