Opinion ID: 1860253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: performance of a contract)

Text: The appropriate place to begin our discussion is to correctly define tortious interference with performance of a contract and to understand how this differs from tortious interference with business relations. In the past, the evolving case law of this state has used these terms interchangeably. See Galloway v. The Travelers Insurance Company, 515 So.2d 678 (Miss. 1987); Protective Service Life Insurance Company v. Carter, 445 So.2d 215 (Miss. 1983); Irby v. Citizens National Bank of Meridian, 239 Miss. 64, 121 So.2d 118 (1960). As this opinion will demonstrate, there is a distinction with a difference. Fundamentally, it is one thing for a wrongdoer to cause another to breach a contract which he or she has with some third person. This is tortious interference with performance of a contract. Yet, it is quite another thing when a wrongdoer unlawfully diverts prospective customers away from one's business thereby encouraging customers to trade with another. This is tortious interference with business relations or sometimes referred to as interference with prospective advantage, which will be examined in part IV. The tort of interference with performance of a contract is one which has been recognized in Mississippi since at least 1959 beginning with Bailey v. Richards, 236 Miss. 523, 111 So.2d 402 (1959). Judge Tom S. Lee in Liston v. Home Insurance Company, 659 F. Supp. 276, 280 (S.D. 1986), described the tort of wrongful interference with contract: One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract 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 pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract. See Mid-Continent Telephone Corp. v. Home Telephone Company, 319 F. Supp. 1176, 1199-1200 (N.D.Miss. 1970), which defined the tort as follows: An action for interference with contract will ordinarily lie when a defendant maliciously interferes with a valid and enforceable contract, thereby causing one party not to perform and resulting in injury to the other contracting party. Malice in this context is the intentional doing of a harmful act without justification or excuse, or stated differently, the wilful violation of a known right. The four elements of tortious interference with contract are as follows: 1. that the acts were intentional and willful; 2. that they were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful business; 3. that they were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant (which constitutes malice); and 4. that actual damage and loss resulted. Liston v. Home Insurance Company, 659 F. Supp. 276, 281 (S.D.Miss. 1986), citing Protective Service Life Insurance Co. v. Carter, 445 So.2d 215, 216-17 (Miss. 1983); Irby v. Citizens National Bank of Meridian, 239 Miss. 64, 121 So.2d 118, 119 (1960). While at first glance the elements of the tort appear to fit the proof presented at trial, under the facts of this case, tortious interference with contract is unavailable as a theory for relief. As Judge Lee noted in Liston v. Home Insurance Company, 659 F. Supp. 276, 280 (S.D.Miss. 1986), a cause of action exists by a party to a contract against some third, outside person who causes the party not to perform. Thus, in order to pursue a cause of action, it is accepted that the wrongdoer is a stranger to the contract which was interfered with  an outsider. A party to a contract cannot be charged with interfering with his own contract. Knight v. Sharif, 875 F.2d 516, 526 (5th Cir.1989); Martin v. Texaco, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 498 (S.D.Miss. 1969); Liston v. Home Insurance Company, 659 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.Miss. 1986); See Cranford v. Shelton, 378 So.2d 652, 655 (Miss. 1980) (If one maliciously interferes in a contract between two parties, and induces one of them to break that contract to the injury of the other, the party injured can maintain an action against the wrongdoer.). As the tort of interference with contract has evolved, it is settled that, [a] defendant's breach of his own contract with the plaintiff is of course not a basis of the tort. Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts, § 129, 990 (5th ed. 1984). Therefore, tortious interference with performance of a contract is unavailable as a theory of relief for the Cenacs in that the wrongdoer (Murry) is also a party to the contract.