Opinion ID: 715363
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The general interference claim

Text: 15 In California, a stranger to a contract may be held liable in tort for intentionally interfering with the performance of a contract. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 791 P.2d 587, 589-90 (Cal.1990). In order to establish liability, the plaintiff must prove: 16 (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damages. 17 Id. Moreover, if the contract interfered with is terminable at will, the plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's interference was wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 902 P.2d 740, 751 (Cal.1995). Because Maxim's allegations that ADI violated the antitrust laws (the only claims of wrongful conduct that Maxim makes against ADI) do not survive summary judgment, Maxim's claim that ADI induced the terminations of Maxim's key distributors must also fail if we determine that the contracts were terminable at will. 18 Maxim argues that its contracts with the independent distributors were not at-will because each contract contained a provision which required a terminating dealer to return all of its Maxim stock and pay 15% handling fee on the returned products. We disagree with Maxim's analysis and hold that an at-will contract is an agreement which either party may terminate without breaching the agreement. Contra Memorial Gardens v. Olympian Sales & Manage, 690 P.2d 207 (Colo.1984). Here, the distributors did not breach their contracts with Maxim by terminating their distributor agreements. Termination was provided for by the agreements themselves. At any time, Maxim had no legal assurance that its relationship with the independent distributors would continue longer than the thirty-day notice period required by the contracts for termination. Presented with these facts, we hold that the contracts between Maxim and the independent distributors were terminable at-will and therefore summary judgment was proper. 19