Opinion ID: 1196440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis of the case

Text: We have here an almost classical, intentional interference situation. See Martin v. Wing, 667 P.2d 1159 (Wyo. 1983); Carpenter, Interference with Contract Relations, 41 Harv.L.Rev. 728 (1928); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B (1979); Annotation, Liability of Third Party for Interference With Prospective Contractual Relationship Between Two Other Parties, 6 A.L.R.4th 195 (1981). 1. Four Nines had a valid expectancy as low bidder for award of the construction contract. Wartensleben v. Willey, 415 P.2d 613 (Wyo. 1966). 2. 71 Construction, as a prospective participant, was aware of the proposed contract which, if executed, would create duties and opportunity for its own financial benefit. First Wyoming Bank, Casper v. Mudge, 748 P.2d 713 (Wyo. 1988). 3. 71 Construction perceived a more immediate economic benefit by assuring the contract did not come into existence in order that its obligation for performance under the contract would be voided. 4. Acting in the interest of its own economic benefit with intent to harm its bidding principal, 71 Construction managed to have the successful general contract bid rejected and the contractual expectancy of its principal eviscerated. This sequence of events is similar to the conduct of the Martins in Martin, 667 P.2d 1159, where the action of the defendant was directed to dissuade the anticipated buyer from completion of a house purchase contract. The threat of litigation here has no greater ring of validity than did the suggested flooding in Martin. In any event, whether 71 Construction actually underbid and whether, even if underbid, it would have constituted a problem to anyone but the bidder is no less a question of fact for trial resolution than was the question of flooding in Martin. The real legal principle at stake here is whether the bidding subcontractor or supplier or performing sub-agent has a privilege as a matter of law to attempt by whatever means to effect avoidance of the principal's contract in order to secure vacation of its own responsibilities under its separate bid. I remain convinced that Toltec Watershed Imp. Dist. v. Johnston, 717 P.2d 808 (Wyo. 1986) was an improvident (and erroneous) decision, but its text provides no authority on this situation where an agent sets out to harm its principal for economic benefit from its separately eliminated responsibility. Allen v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 699 P.2d 277 (Wyo. 1985) also provides no authority since the state worker derived no personal advantage in reporting the bad attitude of the plaintiffs as store employees. Likewise, the dicta in Prazma v. Kaehne, 768 P.2d 586 (Wyo. 1989), relating to access easement litigation, is not persuasive.