Opinion ID: 1441972
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interference with Business Relationship and Inducement of Breach of Contract

Text: Plaintiff has not set forth a viable cause of action for inducement of breach of contract or interference with prospective economic advantage. (12) It is difficult to identify precisely what cause of action plaintiff intended to allege with respect to the so-called interference with a business relationship. The tort of interference with employment relations (see Civ. Code, § 49) was intended to codify a common law action by a master for loss of the services of a domestic servant; in any event, it is inapplicable to a business employee. ( I.J. Weinrot & Son, Inc. v. Jackson (1985) 40 Cal.3d 327 [220 Cal. Rptr. 103, 708 P.2d 682].) (13a) With respect to the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage, plaintiff's pleading has identified no prospective economic advantage other than the continuation of his employment relationship. Thus, as is suggested by the alternative title given this cause of action, it is in reality identical in substance to plaintiff's claim for inducement of breach of contract. It is axiomatic, however, that there can be no action for inducement of breach of contract against the other party to the contract. ( Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers (1977) 65 Cal. App.3d 990, 998-999 [135 Cal. Rptr. 720].) (14) It is also well established that corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of a corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation's contract. ( Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 576 [108 Cal. Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032]; Wise v. Southern Pacific Co. (1963) 223 Cal. App.2d 50, 72-73 [35 Cal. Rptr. 652].) (13b) Here, the parties against whom plaintiff seeks recovery on this cause of action are plaintiff's supervisors: agents of the employer who are vested with the power to act for the employer (rightly or wrongly) in terminating plaintiff's employment. For purposes of this cause of action, then, these defendants stand in the place of the employer, because the employer  the other party to the supposed contract  cannot act except through such agents. Thus, there is no viable inducement of breach of contract or interference with economic advantage that is distinguishable from a cause of action for breach of contract. As we have held, however, plaintiff, a state civil service employee, does not have a contract of employment. Plaintiff improperly seeks to cast this cause of action in tort to obtain recovery to which he is not entitled. The demurrer to the fifth cause of action was properly sustained.