Opinion ID: 1989929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence regarding intentional and improper interference.

Text: We now consider the evidence relating to the intentional/improper interference element. [4] Instruction no. 14 stated that, in determining whether Deere's conduct was improper, the jury could consider the following factors: 1. The nature of the conduct. 2. The Defendant's motive. 3. The interests of the party with which the conduct interferes. 4. The interest sought to be advanced by the Defendant. 5. The social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the Defendant and the contractual interests of the other party. 6. The nearness or remoteness of the Defendant's conduct to the interference. 7. The relations between the parties. This is a correct statement of the law. See Jones, 569 N.W.2d at 377. Upon our review of the record, we conclude substantial evidence exists in the record from which the jury could conclude that Deere intentionally and improperly interfered with Revere's agreement with Delfino and Eckart. Revere presented evidence that Kunath of Deere allegedly contacted Eckart concerning a proposal for a device to replace the Gozinta, while Deere contends that it was Eckart who contacted Kunath. Regardless of who actually initiated the idea for the proposal, Delfino, Eckart and Kunath not only discussed the idea of developing an alternative to replace the Gozinta, but took affirmative steps towards development and manufacturing such a device. All of this was done, including Deere's promise that it would appropriate the funds for development, while Delfino and Eckart were still employed by Revere and when Deere, through its employees, had knowledge or were on notice of Delfino and Eckart's agreement with Revere concerning disclosure of inventions and/or discoveries and confidential information. Furthermore, not only did Deere, Delfino and Eckart purposely not disclose their activities to Revere, but the parties also continued their relationship with Revere, giving Revere a false sense of security that Deere would continue to purchase Gozintas. Evidence in the record also shows that Deere asked Revere's permission to consult with former Revere employees about problems associated with the Gozinta/Deere project, yet did not bother to mention to Revere that it was negotiating a business deal with current employees for a replacement part for the Gozinta. Deere also encouraged Delfino and Eckart to stay on at Revere, according to Kunath, to ensure that Deere continued to receive good product. Eckart also testified he would not have sent a bid to Kunath regarding the replacement part for the Gozinta if Kunath had not told him to do so. While Deere certainly had the right to persuade Delfino and Eckart to work for Deere at some time in the future, Deere had no right to induce Delfino and Eckart to breach their agreement with Revere concerning disclosure of Revere's confidential information. Cf. Moye v. Eure, 21 N.C.App. 261, 204 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1974) (noting that defendant, a competitor of plaintiff, had right to persuade plaintiff's employees to work for defendant, so long as defendant did not induce employees to breach any existing contracts; plaintiff had no contract with its former employees and thus defendant could not be held liable for tortious interference with contract). The fact that the idea of a welded-in sensor was presented and rejected by Revere did not relieve Delfino and Eckart of their ongoing duty to refrain from disclosing Revere's confidential information, knowledge or data, or their duty to disclose their inventions or discoveries to Revere. We conclude that substantial evidence exists in the record to support the jury's verdict that Deere intentionally and improperly interfered with Revere's agreement with Delfino and Eckart. Accordingly, the district court properly overruled Deere's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on this issue.