How To Prove A Michigan Interference With a Business Relationship Claim

 

 

In Michigan, a claim of Interference With a Business Relationship 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:

A person tries to disrupt or damage a contract or business relationship between others.

There are 4 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. The plaintiff had a valid business relationship or expectancy. The plaintiff had a legitimate connection or hope for success with a business partner or customer, which is essential to prove that someone wrongfully interfered with that relationship.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff had an ongoing contract with a major client that generated significant revenue for their business.
  * The plaintiff was in negotiations with a potential partner to expand their services, which would have increased their market share.
  * The plaintiff had a history of successful collaborations with several local businesses, establishing a strong network of professional relationships.
  * The plaintiff received multiple inquiries from prospective clients interested in their unique offerings, indicating a growing demand for their services.
  * The plaintiff had previously secured a verbal agreement with a key supplier, which was expected to enhance their operational capabilities.

• Element 2. The defendant knew of the relationship or expectancy. This means that the person being accused was aware that a business relationship or potential deal existed between two other parties, which is important for proving that they intentionally disrupted that relationship.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant frequently attended meetings where the plaintiff discussed their business relationship with the third party.
  * The defendant had previously worked with the third party and was aware of their ongoing business dealings with the plaintiff.
  * The defendant received direct communication from the plaintiff about the importance of the relationship to their business success.
  * The defendant was present during conversations where the plaintiff expressed concerns about potential interference with their business relationship.
  * The defendant had access to documents that outlined the plaintiff’s contractual agreements with the third party.

• Element 3. The defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship or expectancy. The defendant knowingly disrupted a business relationship or a potential opportunity, causing harm to the other party’s ability to conduct their business or achieve a desired outcome.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant knowingly contacted the plaintiff’s clients and made false statements about the quality of the plaintiff’s services.
  * The defendant offered significant financial incentives to the plaintiff’s employees to persuade them to leave and join the defendant’s company.
  * The defendant intentionally spread rumors about the plaintiff’s business practices to undermine trust with potential clients.
  * The defendant scheduled meetings with the plaintiff’s key partners to discuss competing offers, despite knowing about the existing business relationship.
  * The defendant’s actions directly resulted in a significant loss of contracts for the plaintiff, demonstrating a clear intent to disrupt the business relationship.

• Element 4. The defendant’s interference caused a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy. This means that the defendant’s actions directly led to the end or disruption of a business relationship or opportunity that the plaintiff was relying on, showing that their interference had a significant negative impact on that relationship.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant knowingly contacted the plaintiff’s key clients, offering them incentives to terminate their contracts with the plaintiff.
  * The defendant spread false information about the plaintiff’s business practices, leading to a loss of trust among potential clients.
  * The defendant’s actions directly resulted in a significant decrease in the plaintiff’s sales, causing several clients to end their business relationships.
  * The defendant engaged in a campaign of harassment against the plaintiff’s employees, which disrupted ongoing business negotiations.
  * The defendant’s interference prompted a major supplier to withdraw from a long-standing agreement with the plaintiff, severely impacting the plaintiff’s operations.

^{(See BPS Clinical Laboratories v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 217 Mich. App. 687 (1996).)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Interference With a Business Relationship, 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 MI Interference With a Business Relationship Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only