Opinion ID: 874208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interference with Contracts

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. . . . Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979). Liability may arise for tortious interference with a contract even where the contract is terminable at will because, until it has been terminated by one party, the contract is valid and subsisting and a defendant may not improperly interfere with it. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 cmt. g. (1979). Tortious interference with contract has four elements: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract on the part of the defendant; (3) intentional interference causing a breach of the contract; and (4) injury to the plaintiff resulting from the breach. Bybee v. Isaac, 145 Idaho 251, 259, 178 P.3d 616, 624 (2008). The plaintiff must establish these elements before the burden switches to the defendant to explain the interference with the contracts. Nw. Bec-Corp v. Home Living Serv., 136 Idaho 835, 841, 41 P.3d 263, 269 (2002). The `intent' of the `intentional interference' requirement can be inferred by the jury from evidence of `conduct substantially certain to interfere with the [contract].' Bybee v. Isaac, 145 Idaho 251, 259, 178 P.3d 616, 624 (2008) (quoting Highland Enters., Inc. v. Barker, 133 Idaho 330, 340, 986 P.2d 996, 1006 (1999)). In Bybee, this Court found that there was evidence from which the jury could have inferred Farm Air engaged in conduct substantially certain to interfere with the non-compete agreement because the owner of Farm Air knew of the covenant not to compete, hired Isaac directly after she quit working for Bybee Air, and testified that he did not ask Isaac to refrain from contact with customers of Bybee Air before or after he hired her, nor put any limitations on her ability to contact customers. Id.
Wesco alleged in its First Amended Complaint that Ernest, Davis, P & S, and APW had knowledge of Wesco's contract with the employees, and they intentionally interfered with the employee contracts, which caused a breach of the contract and injury to Wesco. The district court found that there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Wesco employees breached their employment contract with Wesco and, therefore, Wesco cannot maintain this action against Defendants. We agree based upon our determination that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist regarding whether the employees breached their employment contracts with Wesco.
Wesco next contends that all Defendants had knowledge of Wesco's contracts with its customers and Defendants intentionally interfered with those contracts, resulting in a breach of the relationships and injury to Wesco. In its First Amended Complaint, Wesco identified three contracts it claimed were interfered with. On appeal, Wesco focuses on one of the contracts, and argues that because the customer is still using the equipment but not purchasing paint from Wesco, evidence of interference has been provided. Defendants argued below that there was no evidence of an injury because the contracts identified by Wesco merely require that any equipment provided to the customers be returned along with any unused product, and therefore Wesco could simply pick up its equipment and bill the customers for any unused paint. Here, the district court found that a conditional use contract was the only contract between Wesco and customers that may have been breached by the customers. The court stated: There is no other evidence that Wesco customers owed a contractual duty to Wesco to continue to purchase goods and/or services from them. There is no other evidence that such Wesco customers then breached such a contractual duty as a result of any interference in the contractual relationship by any of the Defendants. The three contracts Wesco identified provided that P & E would supply equipment at no charge in exchange for the customer purchasing products from P & E. As Defendants argued, Wesco could simply pick up its equipment if the customers were no longer purchasing the specified products from Wesco. Therefore, we affirm the district court and find that Defendants did not interfere with Wesco's customer contracts.