How To Prove A Texas Tortious Interference With Contractual Relationship Claim
In Texas, a claim of Tortious Interference With Contractual 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:
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 reasonable probability that the parties would have entered into a contractual relationship. This means that it was likely the two parties would have made a contract if not for someone else’s interference, suggesting that their relationship was strong enough to lead to an agreement under normal circumstances.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The parties engaged in multiple discussions regarding the terms of a potential agreement, indicating mutual interest in forming a contract.
* Both parties exchanged drafts of the proposed contract, demonstrating a clear intent to finalize the agreement.
* The parties had a history of successful collaborations, which suggests a likelihood of entering into a new contractual relationship.
* Relevant industry standards and practices supported the expectation that the parties would formalize their agreement.
* The parties had agreed on key terms, with only minor details remaining to be finalized, indicating a strong probability of contract formation. - Element 2. An intentional and malicious act by the defendant prevented the relationship from occurring. This means that the defendant deliberately did something harmful to stop a contract or agreement from happening between two other parties, showing that their actions were meant to interfere with that relationship.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly made false statements about the plaintiff to the third party, damaging the plaintiff’s reputation.
* The defendant directly contacted the third party, urging them to terminate their negotiations with the plaintiff without any legitimate reason.
* The defendant had a personal motive to disrupt the plaintiff’s potential relationship with the third party, stemming from a prior conflict.
* The defendant’s actions were premeditated, as evidenced by their planning and execution of a strategy to undermine the plaintiff’s opportunities.
* The defendant celebrated the failure of the plaintiff’s relationship with the third party, indicating a malicious intent behind their interference. - Element 3. The defendant’s purpose was to harm the plaintiff. In a claim of tortious interference with a contractual relationship, it must be shown that the defendant intended to cause harm to the plaintiff by disrupting their existing contract with another party.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant publicly expressed a desire to see the plaintiff’s business fail, indicating a clear intent to cause harm.
* The defendant contacted the plaintiff’s clients directly, urging them to terminate their contracts with the plaintiff.
* The defendant had a history of competitive animosity towards the plaintiff, which suggests a motive to inflict damage.
* The defendant knowingly provided false information to the plaintiff’s partners, leading to a breakdown in their contractual relationship.
* The defendant celebrated the plaintiff’s loss of business as a personal victory, demonstrating a malicious intent to harm. - Element 4. The defendant lacked privilege or justification to do the act The defendant acted without a good reason or legal right when interfering with the contract, meaning they had no valid excuse for their actions that disrupted the agreement between the other parties involved.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly contacted the plaintiff’s business partners to persuade them to breach their contracts, despite being aware of the existing agreements.
* The defendant had no legitimate business interest in interfering with the plaintiff’s contractual relationships and acted solely out of malice.
* The defendant’s actions caused significant financial harm to the plaintiff, demonstrating a lack of justification for their interference.
* The defendant made false statements about the plaintiff’s business practices to induce third parties to terminate their contracts.
* The defendant had previously been warned that their actions could lead to legal consequences, yet they proceeded to interfere with the plaintiff’s contracts. - Element 5. The plaintiff suffered actual damage or loss because of the defendant’s interference. The plaintiff must show that they experienced real harm or financial loss due to the defendant’s actions that disrupted their 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, resulting in a financial loss of $100,000.
* The plaintiff incurred additional legal fees while attempting to resolve the contractual dispute caused by the defendant’s actions.
* The plaintiff’s business reputation suffered significantly, leading to a 30% decrease in client inquiries after the defendant’s interference became known.
* The plaintiff was forced to lay off employees as a direct result of the financial strain caused by the defendant’s actions.
* The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety, impacting their ability to conduct business effectively after the defendant’s interference.
(See Exxon Corp. v. Allsup, 808 SW 2d 648 – Tex: Court of Appeals, 13th Dist. 1991.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Tortious Interference With Contractual Relationship, 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 necessary to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.
Prove Your TX Tortious Interference With Contractual Relationship Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only