How To Prove A California Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations Claim
In California, a claim of Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations 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 6 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. There was a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party. For a claim of intentional interference with contractual relations, 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 their 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 contract included specific performance obligations, deadlines, and compensation details that both parties acknowledged and accepted.
* Both the plaintiff and the third party executed the contract in the presence of witnesses, confirming its validity.
* The third party fulfilled their obligations under the contract for six months before the alleged interference occurred.
* The plaintiff provided evidence of payment and communication that demonstrated the ongoing performance of the contract. - Element 2. The defendant knew of the contract. In a claim for intentional interference with a contract, it must be shown that the defendant was aware of the existing contract between two parties, meaning they knew that the contract was in place and that their actions could disrupt it.
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 details.
* The defendant was informed by mutual acquaintances about the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the third party.
* The defendant’s actions directly targeted the contractual relationship, suggesting an understanding of its significance. - Element 3. The defendant’s conduct prevented performance on the contract or made performance more expensive or difficult. This means that the defendant’s actions stopped the other party from fulfilling their contract or made it much harder and costlier for them to do so.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant repeatedly contacted the plaintiff’s business partners, discouraging them from fulfilling their contractual obligations.
* The defendant spread false information about the plaintiff’s financial stability, causing third parties to withdraw from existing contracts.
* The defendant’s actions led to a significant delay in the delivery of essential materials, increasing costs for the plaintiff.
* The defendant engaged in a campaign of harassment against the plaintiff, making it difficult for them to conduct business as usual.
* The defendant’s interference caused a key supplier to terminate their contract with the plaintiff, resulting in increased operational expenses. - Element 4. The defendant intended to disrupt the performance of the contract or knew that disruption of performance was certain or substantially certain to occur. This means that the person accused of interfering with a contract either planned to cause problems for the contract or was aware that their actions would likely lead to those problems happening.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was aware of the existing contract between the plaintiff and a third party, as they had previously discussed its terms in detail.
* The defendant made statements to the third party indicating that they should not honor the contract with the plaintiff, suggesting a clear intent to disrupt.
* The defendant took actions that directly interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as spreading false information about the plaintiff’s reliability.
* The defendant had a history of engaging in similar disruptive behavior in prior business dealings, demonstrating a pattern of intentional interference.
* The defendant was present during negotiations between the plaintiff and the third party, where they actively attempted to persuade the third party to withdraw from the contract. - Element 5. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff was harmed means that the person who is suing suffered some kind of loss or damage, like financial trouble or emotional distress, because someone else intentionally interfered with their contract or agreement with another party.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff lost a significant client due to the defendant’s actions, resulting in a 30% decrease in revenue for the plaintiff’s business.
* The plaintiff incurred legal fees exceeding $10,000 while attempting to enforce the contract that the defendant interfered with.
* The plaintiff experienced reputational damage, leading to a loss of future business opportunities and partnerships.
* The plaintiff was forced to lay off employees as a direct result of the financial strain caused by the defendant’s interference.
* The plaintiff suffered emotional distress and anxiety due to the uncertainty and instability created by the defendant’s actions. - Element 6. The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff. This means that the defendant’s actions played a significant role in causing the plaintiff to suffer harm, showing that what the defendant did directly contributed to the problems the plaintiff faced in their contractual relationship.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly contacted the plaintiff’s business partner to persuade them to breach their contract with the plaintiff.
* The defendant provided false information to the plaintiff’s client, leading them to terminate their agreement with the plaintiff.
* The defendant’s actions directly resulted in the plaintiff losing a significant contract, causing financial harm.
* The defendant had a history of interfering with contracts in the same industry, demonstrating a pattern of harmful conduct.
* The timing of the defendant’s interference coincided with the plaintiff’s negotiations, indicating intentional disruption.
(See Halvorsen v. Aramark Uniform Services, 65 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 383 (Cal. Court of Appeals 1998). California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 2201.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Claim of Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations, 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 that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.
Prove Your CA Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only