How To Prove A California Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Relations Claim

In California, a claim of Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic 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. The plaintiff and a third party were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to plaintiff. The plaintiff had a business relationship with a third party that was likely to bring the plaintiff financial gain.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff had a signed contract with a third party to provide services that would generate significant revenue for both parties.
* The plaintiff and the third party had engaged in negotiations for a long-term partnership that indicated mutual interest and potential profitability.
* The plaintiff had previously received consistent orders from the third party, demonstrating a stable economic relationship that was likely to continue.
* The third party had expressed intentions to expand their business, which would have directly increased the plaintiff’s sales and profits.
* The plaintiff had invested resources in preparation for a project with the third party, indicating a strong expectation of economic benefit from the relationship. - Element 2. The defendant knew of the relationship and engaged in wrongful conduct. The defendant was aware that there was a relationship between two parties and intentionally acted in a way that disrupted or harmed that relationship, leading to negative consequences for one of the parties involved.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s business relationship with a third party through direct communication and shared industry contacts.
* The defendant intentionally contacted the third party to dissuade them from continuing their business dealings with the plaintiff.
* The defendant made false statements about the plaintiff’s business practices to the third party, knowing it would harm the plaintiff’s relationship.
* The defendant had previously expressed a desire to undermine the plaintiff’s business success to mutual acquaintances.
* The defendant’s actions directly coincided with the plaintiff’s efforts to secure a contract with the third party, indicating a deliberate interference. - Element 3. By engaging in this conduct, defendant intended to or knew that the disruption of the relationship was substantially certain to occur. This means that the defendant acted in a way that they either wanted to disrupt someone else’s future business opportunities or were aware that their actions would likely cause that disruption to happen.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had prior knowledge of the plaintiff’s business relationships and their significance to the plaintiff’s economic success.
* The defendant made false statements about the plaintiff’s business practices to third parties, knowing it would harm the plaintiff’s reputation.
* The defendant actively encouraged clients to terminate their contracts with the plaintiff, fully aware of the potential economic consequences.
* The defendant had a history of similar conduct that resulted in the disruption of other business relationships.
* The defendant expressed a desire to undermine the plaintiff’s business during conversations with mutual acquaintances. - Element 4. The economic relationship was disrupted. The economic relationship was disrupted means that someone interfered with a business deal or opportunity, causing harm to the expected financial benefits that one party was counting on from that relationship.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant’s actions caused a significant delay in the plaintiff’s contract negotiations, leading to lost business opportunities.
* The plaintiff’s potential clients withdrew their interest after being influenced by the defendant’s false statements about the plaintiff’s services.
* The defendant’s interference resulted in the plaintiff losing a lucrative partnership that was in the final stages of negotiation.
* The plaintiff experienced a noticeable decline in sales following the defendant’s targeted campaign to discredit the plaintiff’s business.
* The defendant’s actions led to the cancellation of a key contract that was expected to generate substantial revenue for the plaintiff. - Element 5. Plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff must show that they suffered actual harm, such as lost profits or business opportunities, because someone intentionally interfered with their chance to make money or build a business relationship.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff lost a significant business contract due to the defendant’s false statements about the plaintiff’s reliability.
* The plaintiff’s reputation in the industry was damaged, leading to a decrease in client inquiries and potential partnerships.
* The plaintiff incurred financial losses amounting to thousands of dollars as a direct result of the defendant’s actions.
* The plaintiff was unable to secure funding for a new project because potential investors were misled by the defendant’s interference.
* The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety due to the uncertainty of their business’s future caused by the defendant’s conduct. - Element 6. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. The defendant’s actions played a significant role in causing the plaintiff to suffer financial losses or missed business opportunities, showing that their behavior directly impacted the plaintiff’s ability to succeed economically.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* Defendant knowingly made false statements about the plaintiff’s business practices to potential clients.
* Defendant actively encouraged third parties to withdraw their business from the plaintiff, resulting in significant financial losses.
* Defendant’s actions directly led to the cancellation of a major contract that the plaintiff was negotiating.
* Defendant had a history of undermining the plaintiff’s business relationships to gain a competitive advantage.
* Defendant’s interference occurred during a critical period when the plaintiff was poised for growth, exacerbating the harm caused.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 2202.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Relations, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical 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 Prospective Economic Relations Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only