How To Prove A Michigan Tortious Interference With a Contract Claim

 

 

In Michigan, a claim of Tortious Interference With a Contract is defined as:

Tortious interference occurs when a third party intentionally and improperly interferes 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 5 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. There was a contract. A contract exists when two parties agree to specific terms, creating a legal obligation for each to fulfill their promises, which is essential for proving that someone wrongfully interfered with that agreement in a tortious interference claim.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The parties involved exchanged signed documents outlining the terms and conditions of the agreement.
  * Both parties performed their respective obligations under the contract for a period of six months.
  * There was clear communication between the parties regarding the expectations and responsibilities outlined in the contract.
  * The contract included specific provisions for dispute resolution, indicating mutual consent to the terms.
  * Payment was made in accordance with the agreed-upon schedule, demonstrating the existence of a binding agreement.

• Element 2. The contract was breached. A contract was breached means that one party did not follow the agreed terms, which can lead to legal issues if someone else interfered and caused that breach, affecting the relationship between the original parties involved.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant knowingly induced a third party to terminate their contract with the plaintiff.
  * The plaintiff fulfilled all contractual obligations prior to the alleged breach.
  * The defendant’s actions directly resulted in the plaintiff losing a significant business opportunity.
  * The third party expressed that they would not have terminated the contract without the defendant’s interference.
  * The plaintiff suffered financial damages as a direct result of the contract breach instigated by the defendant.

• Element 3. The defendant instigated the breach. The defendant encouraged or caused someone to break a contract with another party, playing a key role in the disruption of that agreement.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant contacted the plaintiff’s business partner and urged them to terminate their contract with the plaintiff.
  * The defendant made false statements about the plaintiff’s ability to fulfill contractual obligations to induce the breach.
  * The defendant offered the plaintiff’s business partner a financial incentive to break their existing agreement with the plaintiff.
  * The defendant had prior knowledge of the contract and intentionally sought to disrupt the relationship between the plaintiff and their partner.
  * The defendant repeatedly expressed a desire to see the plaintiff’s business fail, demonstrating a motive to instigate the breach.

• Element 4. The defendant’s instigation of the breach was unjustified. This means that the defendant encouraged someone to break a contract without a good reason, showing that their actions were unfair and not based on any legitimate justification.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant had no legitimate business interest in the contract between the plaintiff and the third party.
  * The defendant knowingly provided false information to the third party to induce them to breach the contract.
  * The defendant had a history of attempting to disrupt the plaintiff’s business relationships without cause.
  * The defendant’s actions were motivated by personal animosity rather than any competitive business strategy.
  * The defendant was aware of the existing contract and its terms but chose to interfere regardless.

• Element 5. The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s actions. The plaintiff experienced harm or loss because of what the defendant did, which interfered with the plaintiff’s existing contract with another party.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff lost a lucrative contract with a third party due to the defendant’s intentional interference.
  * As a direct result of the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff incurred significant financial losses amounting to thousands of dollars.
  * The plaintiff experienced reputational harm, leading to a decrease in future business opportunities.
  * The defendant’s interference caused the plaintiff emotional distress, impacting their ability to conduct business effectively.
  * The plaintiff was forced to spend additional resources on legal fees to address the defendant’s wrongful actions.

^{(See Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care Services, Inc., 706 NW 2d 843 – Mich: Court of Appeals 2005. M Civ. JI 125.01 (adding the necessary damage element to the cause of action). Mahrle v. Danke, 216 Mich.App. 343, 350, 549 N.W.2d 56 (1996).)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Tortious Interference With a 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 navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.

Prove Your MI Tortious Interference With a Contract Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only