• 2004 - Intentional Interference With Contract
  • C-24.00
    • Contracts
    • Inference
    • Tort Liability
    • Tort Liability

  • To establish a claim for intentional interference with contract, [the Plaintiff] must prove by the greater weight of the evidence:

     

    1) A valid contract existed;

     

    2) The contract was breached;

     

    3) [The Defendant] intentionally instigated the breach, or acted with knowledge that the breach would result, and

     

    4) There was no justification for [the Defendant’s] act. An act that interferes with a contract is justified if it is done with a legitimate business purpose and no improper means are used.

     

    An act that interferes with a contract is not justified if its indirect purpose is to injure [the Plaintiff] or benefit [the Defendant] at [the Plaintiff’s] expense.

    *****

    • Bismarck Realty Co. v. Folden, 354 NW2d 636 (ND 1984)
    • Hennum v. City of Medina, 402 NW2d 327 (ND 1987)
    • Hilton v. ND Educ. Ass’n, 2002 ND 209, 655 NW2d 60
    • N. Plains Alliance v. Mitzel, 2003 ND 91, 663 NW2d 169
    • Peterson v. Zerr, 477 NW2d 230 (ND 1991)
  • Notes: Interference with business relations is a claim different from interference with contract. Trade ’N Post v. World Duty Free Americas, 2001 ND 116, ¶43, 628 NW2d 707. See C - 24.10, Unlawful Interference With Business.