How To Prove A Texas Tortious Interference With Existing Contract Claim

 

 

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

Tortious 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 4 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. There was an existing contract subject to interference. There was a valid agreement between two parties that was being followed, which someone else wrongfully disrupted or interfered with, causing problems for those involved in the contract.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff and a third party entered into a written contract on January 15, 2023, outlining specific terms for the sale of goods.
  * The contract included a clause that prohibited either party from engaging with competitors during its term.
  * The plaintiff fulfilled all contractual obligations and communicated regularly with the third party regarding the contract’s performance.
  * The third party expressed satisfaction with the plaintiff’s services and indicated a desire to renew the contract upon expiration.
  * The defendant was aware of the existing contract and intentionally took actions to disrupt the relationship between the plaintiff and the third party.

• Element 2. The defendant willfully and intentionally interfered with the contract. The defendant knowingly and deliberately disrupted an existing agreement between two parties, causing harm or potential harm to one of those parties involved in the contract.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant was aware of the existing contract between the plaintiff and a third party.
  * The defendant made false statements to the third party, intending to persuade them to breach the contract.
  * The defendant actively encouraged the third party to terminate their agreement with the plaintiff.
  * The defendant had a motive to disrupt the plaintiff’s business relationship for personal gain.
  * The defendant’s actions directly resulted in the third party breaching the contract with the plaintiff.

• Element 3. The defendant’s intentional act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damage. The defendant’s deliberate actions directly led to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, meaning that the damage was a foreseeable result of what the defendant did, linking their behavior to the plaintiff’s loss in a clear and immediate way.
  

  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.
  * As a direct result of the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff lost a significant client, leading to a substantial decrease in revenue.
  * The defendant’s interference was intentional and aimed at disrupting the plaintiff’s contractual relationship for personal gain.
  * The plaintiff had a valid contract in place, which the defendant was aware of when they acted to interfere.
  * Following the defendant’s interference, the plaintiff experienced reputational harm that further impacted their business operations.

• Element 4. The plaintiff suffered actual damage or loss. The plaintiff must show that they experienced real harm or financial loss because someone interfered with their existing contract, proving that the interference had a negative impact on their situation.
  

  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 quarter.
  * The plaintiff incurred additional legal fees while attempting to enforce the existing contract after the defendant’s interference.
  * The plaintiff’s reputation was damaged, leading to a loss of future business opportunities and contracts.
  * The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety due to the uncertainty created by the defendant’s interference with the contract.
  * The plaintiff had to hire additional staff to manage the fallout from the contract disruption, increasing operational costs.

^{(See Prudential Ins. v. Financial Review Servs., 29 S. W. 3d 74 (Tex. Supreme Court 2000). Clark v. Waggoner, 452 S. W. 2d 437 (Tex. Supreme Court 1970). Farley v. MM Cattle Company, 529 S. W. 2d 751 (Tex. Supreme Court 1975). Funes v. Villatoro, 352 S. W. 3d.)}
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Claim of Tortious Interference With Existing 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 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 TX Tortious Interference With Existing Contract Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only