What Is Tortious Interference? Part 4

Transcript

Hi, I'm Regina Campbell with The Campbell Law Group, and we're coming to you today to talk a little bit about part four of the tortious interference series, specifically the element of causation.

Previously, we've talked about the two different types of tortious interference that exist, which are tortious interference with a contractual relationship and tortious interference with an economic relationship, sometimes also known as an advantageous business relationship. Well, in those elements, part of what needs to occur, of course, is an interference, or wrongful interference, as we've talked about in the previous series. But more importantly, the wrongful behavior that led to the interference itself must be proven through substantial and competent evidence, showing that this particular action by the defendant led to the actual interference with the contract or the economic relationship. That is the string that connects the two.

So, therefore, say you have a situation where causation is just supposition: "He or she stole my client list. I have evidence that they've been talking to the client. That should be enough for interference. And also, my clients stopped doing business with me, or decided not to enter the contract, or terminated the contract. Therefore, it must be that they tortiously interfered." Well, it doesn't quite work that way. You have to be very clear and show competent evidence that specifically the person stealing the list, contacting this person, knowing of the contract's or the economic relationship's existence, coupled with their action, is what led to the actual interference, and eventually the damages, which we'll talk about in the last series.

So it doesn't have to be a complete bullet, so to speak, from a clear point A to point B, but it does need to be proven through substantial and competent evidence. It's an element that's very often hard to actually prove, because a lot of times you have to prove that there's not another reason that this person may have stopped doing business with you or terminated the contract, such as potential pricing. That's provided the pricing wasn't used, for instance, in a pricing war started by the defendant who interfered, as a result of their ability to receive information through wrongful means. But say, for instance, the pricing no longer worked for them, or they were looking at moving on to another market, whatever have you. That will not be enough to actually prove causation.

So something to keep in mind, and stay tuned for the final series, part five, on damages. Thank you.