Opinion ID: 1058411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intentional Interference with Performance of Contract by Third Party

Text: One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract. Chaves, 230 Va. at 120, 335 S.E.2d at 102. This Court, in Chaves, stated the elements necessary to support a cause of action for tortious interference with contract rights. The elements required for a prima facie showing of the tort are: (i) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (ii) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferor; (iii) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (iv) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted. Id. MRC alleged that a contract existed between SouthStar and MRC, that DurretteBradshaw knew of this relationship, and that MRC lost the profits it would have made if the contract between MRC and SouthStar had been fulfilled. The resolution of this appeal hinges upon whether MRC's complaint alleges an act that constitutes intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy between MRC and SouthStar. DurretteBradshaw argues that the intentional interference inducing the breach or termination of the contract must be intentional interference with the specific contract for which the plaintiff claims damages. Thus, DurretteBradshaw argues that MRC's complaint is insufficient because it fails to allege that DurretteBradshaw's actions were intended to induce or cause a breach of the contract between MRC and SouthStar. MRC, on the other hand, claims that a plaintiff need only plead intentional action, on the part of the defendant, with the knowledge such action will result in a breach or termination of the plaintiff's relationship or expectancy; the defendant's purposeful act need not be with the intent to disrupt the plaintiff's relationship or expectancy. Thus, according to MRC, it stated a cause of action for tortious interference against DurretteBradshaw by alleging intentional interference by DurretteBradshaw with the SouthStar/SEI contract, and alleging that such interference resulted in the breach or termination of MRC's relationship or expectancy with SouthStar, the existence of which DurretteBradshaw was aware. We disagree with MRC. This Court applied § 766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in Chaves. We find the commentary accompanying § 766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts to be instructive. The plaintiff relies on Comment j to § 766 of the Restatement in support of its theory of the case. That Comment states: j. Intent and purpose. The rule stated in this Section is applicable if the actor acts for the primary purpose of interfering with the performance of the contract, and also if he desires to interfere, even though he acts for some other purpose in addition. The rule is broader, however, in its application than to cases in which the defendant has acted with this purpose or desire. It applies also to intentional interference, ... in which the actor does not act for the purpose of interfering with the contract or desire it but knows that the interference is certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of his action. The rule applies, in other words, to an interference that is incidental to the actor's independent purpose and desire but known to him to be a necessary consequence of his action. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766, cmt. j (1979). However, Comment p to § 766 of the Restatement further explains § 766 by stating: The person protected by the rule stated in [§ 766] is the specified person with whom the third person had a contract that the actor caused him not to perform. To subject the actor to liability under this rule, his conduct must be intended to affect the contract of a specific person. It is not enough that one has been prevented from obtaining performance of a contract as a result of the actor's conduct. ( Cf. § 766A). Thus, if A induces B to break a contract with C, persons other than C who may be harmed by the action as, for example, his employees or suppliers, are not within the scope of the protection afforded by this rule, unless A intends to affect them. Even then they may not be able to recover unless A acted for the purpose of interfering with their contracts. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766, cmt. p (1979). Reading these Comments harmoniously, it is clear that Comment j states the intended parameters of the cause of action for tortious interference with contract rights, and Comment p delineates the persons the cause of action is intended to protect. Comment p makes it clear that, unlike a party to the contract that the defendant induced a third person not to perform, a plaintiff who is not a party to such contract must prove that the defendant acted with the purpose of interfering with the plaintiff's contract, in order to maintain a cause of action for tortious interference with contract rights against that defendant. Thus, if DurretteBradshaw induced SEI to break its contract with SouthStar, persons or entities other than SouthStar, such as MRC, who may have been harmed by DurretteBradshaw's act, may not maintain a cause of action for tortious interference with contract against DurretteBradshaw, unless such persons or entities can prove that DurretteBradshaw interfered with the SouthStar/SEI contract for the purpose of interfering with the contract of that person or entity. MRC states in its complaint that DurretteBradshaw, with knowledge of the contract between MRC and SouthStar, induced SEI to break the SouthStar/SEI contract. MRC does not allege that DurretteBradshaw intended to affect MRC's contract with SouthStar or that DurretteBradshaw acted with the purpose of interfering with that contract. Because MRC did not plead facts supporting such an intention, we hold that MRC did not sufficiently state a cause of action against DurretteBradshaw for tortious interference with MRC's contract with SouthStar.