The fact the plaintiff has a cause of action against the other party to the contract is not a defense to such an action. This established a prima facie case for the plaintiff. However defendant's interference may be privileged defeating the action. Although the nature of this privilege has been expressed in a variety of language the question is essentially the following. Upon a consideration of the relative significance of all the factors involved, should the defendant's conduct be permitted despite its expected harm to the plaintiff.
Privilege is an affirmative defense.
The defendant has the burden of proving his privilege to interfere with the contract and can do so under the general issue. See James, Civil Procedure, s. 4.7, pp. Officers, directors or stockholders who have an interest in the activities of a corporation or the duty to advise or direct such activities are held immune from liability in an action for inducing the corporation to breach its contract if the predominant purpose underlying their action is the pursuit in good faith of the best interest of the corporation. Whether Illig's conduct was privileged in this case was a question of fact to be determined by a weighing of the factors involved. In granting defendant Illig's motion to dismiss the Trial Court impliedly found that he had sustained his burden of proving his privilege to intervene.