How To Prove A California Intentional Interference With Contract Claim

In California, a claim of Intentional Interference With Contract is defined as:
Interference occurs when a third party intentionally and improperly interferes with a business relationship or with the performance of the terms of a contract.
It simply means:
When a third party tries to disrupt or damage a contract or business relationship.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. There was a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party. For a claim of intentional interference with a contract, it must be shown that a legitimate agreement existed between the plaintiff and another party, meaning both sides had a clear understanding and commitment to the terms of that contract.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff and the third party entered into a written agreement on January 15, 2023, outlining the terms of their business relationship.
* The third party provided consideration in the form of services, which were accepted by the plaintiff as part of the contract.
* Both parties performed their obligations under the contract until the defendant’s interference occurred.
* The contract included specific terms regarding duration, payment, and deliverables, which were agreed upon by both parties.
* The plaintiff can provide evidence of communications and actions that demonstrate the existence of the contract with the third party. - Element 2. The defendant had knowledge of the contract. The defendant knew about the existing contract between two parties, which is important for proving that they intentionally interfered with that agreement.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was present during negotiations between the plaintiff and the third party, indicating awareness of the contract’s existence.
* The defendant received a copy of the contract from the plaintiff prior to the alleged interference.
* The defendant had previously discussed the terms of the contract with the plaintiff, demonstrating knowledge of its provisions.
* The defendant was informed by a mutual acquaintance about the contract and its significance to the plaintiff.
* The defendant’s actions directly referenced the contract, suggesting an understanding of its terms and implications. - Element 3. The defendant’s intentional acts were designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship. The defendant purposely took actions aimed at causing someone to break or interfere with a contract they had with another party, showing that their intent was to disrupt that agreement.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly contacted the plaintiff’s business partners to persuade them to terminate their contracts with the plaintiff.
* The defendant made false statements about the plaintiff’s financial stability to undermine trust in their contractual agreements.
* The defendant offered incentives to the plaintiff’s clients to breach their existing contracts and switch to the defendant’s services.
* The defendant monitored the plaintiff’s business dealings and strategically timed their interference to maximize disruption.
* The defendant had prior knowledge of the plaintiff’s contracts and intentionally targeted those relationships to cause harm. - Element 4. The defendant’s intentional acts caused an actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship. The defendant’s deliberate actions directly led to a real breakdown or interruption of the agreement between the parties involved, showing that their interference was not just accidental but intended to harm the contractual relationship.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly contacted the plaintiff’s business partners to persuade them to terminate their contracts with the plaintiff.
* The defendant made false statements about the plaintiff’s financial stability to induce third parties to breach their agreements.
* The defendant’s actions directly led to a significant decline in the plaintiff’s client base, resulting in contract cancellations.
* The defendant intentionally disrupted scheduled meetings between the plaintiff and potential clients, causing missed opportunities and contract losses.
* The defendant’s interference was deliberate, as evidenced by their communications outlining a plan to undermine the plaintiff’s contractual relationships. - Element 5. The plaintiff suffered harm or damage. The plaintiff must show that they experienced actual harm or loss, such as financial damage or missed opportunities, as a direct result of the defendant’s actions that interfered with their contract with another party.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff lost a lucrative contract worth $100,000 due to the defendant’s interference.
* The plaintiff incurred significant legal fees while attempting to enforce the original contract after the defendant’s actions.
* The plaintiff experienced a decline in business reputation, resulting in a 30% drop in client inquiries.
* The plaintiff was forced to lay off employees due to the financial strain caused by the contract disruption.
* The plaintiff suffered emotional distress and anxiety as a direct result of the defendant’s intentional interference.
(See TDE, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 57 (Cal. Court of Appeals 2003).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Intentional Interference With Contract, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Intentional Interference With Contract Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only