Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Tort Claims Rossi’s action in the district court asserted four state law torts; 1) tortious interference with contractual relations, 2) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, 3) libel and defamation, and 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any of these claims, each must fail, To establish a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, Rossi must prove “the absence of justification on the defendant’s part ...” Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 936 P.2d 655, 668 (1997). Rossi must also establish the absence of justification to prevail on his intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. See Kutcher v. Zimmerman, 87 Hawai'i 394, 957 P.2d 1076, 1087 n. 15 (1998) (<HOLDING>). The MPAA’s compliance with the notice and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage may not be directed against an individual who is an officer and the sole stockholder of a corporation which is a party to the economic relationship at issue (B) holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice (C) recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations (D) recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage (E) recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage
Output (English): holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice