Tortious interference
 |
| Tort law I |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Intentional torts |
| Assault · Battery |
| False arrest · False imprisonment |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress |
| Property torts |
| Trespass to chattels |
| Trespass to land · Conversion |
| Detinue · Replevin · Trover |
| Dignitary and economic torts |
| Slander and libel · Invasion of privacy |
| Fraud · Tortious interference |
| Alienation of affections |
| Breach of confidence · Abuse of process |
| Malicious prosecution · Conspiracy |
| Defenses to intentional torts |
| Consent · Necessity |
| Self defense and defense of others |
| Fair comment (as to slander/libel) |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Property law |
| Wills and trusts |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).
Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.
Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships.
The tort was first described in the case of Keeble v. Hickeringill, (1707) 103 Eng. Rep. 1127, styled as a "trespass on the case". In that case, the defendant had used a shotgun to drive ducks away from a pond that the plaintiff had built for the purpose of capturing ducks. Although the ducks had not yet been captured, the Justice Holt wrote for the court that "where a violent or malicious act is done to a man's occupation, profession, or way of getting a livelihood, there an action lies in all cases." The court noted that the defendant would have the right to draw away ducks to a pond of his own, raising as a comparison a 1410 case in which the court deemed that no cause of action would lie where a schoolmaster opened a new school that drew students away from an old school.
Tortious interference is a major plot device in the 1999 film The Insider[1].
Contents |
Elements
Although the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference vary from one jurisdiction to another, they typically include the following:
- The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
- Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
- Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
- Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
- Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Source
- Jesse Dukeminier and James E. Krier, Property, Fifth Edition, Aspen Law & Business (New York, 2002), p. 31-36. ISBN 0-7355-2437-8
See also
Categories
Tort law