(301) 588 - 7717    DC | MD | VA
Saunders & Schmieler Law Offices
  • About
  • Attorneys
    • Jeffrey R. Schmieler
    • A. Benjamin Horton
  • Firm Prospectus
  • Publications
    • Blog
  • Full Service Representation
  • Audit Services
  • Contact
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • About
  • Attorneys
    • Jeffrey R. Schmieler
    • A. Benjamin Horton
  • Firm Prospectus
  • Publications
    • Blog
  • Full Service Representation
  • Audit Services
  • Contact
  • Curriculum Vitae

s&s blog

Tortious Interference with Contract

2/7/2020

1 Comment

 
Jeffrey R. Schmieler, Esquire 
​To prove that a defendant has tortiously interfered with a contract, the plaintiff must prove six elements: (1) The existence of a contract or a legally protected interest between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional inducement of the third party to breach or otherwise render impossible the performance of the contract; (4) without justification on the part of the defendant; (5) the subsequent breach by the third party; and (6) damages to the plaintiff resulting therefrom. Brass Metal Products, Inc. v. E-J Enterprises, Inc., 189 Md. App. 310, 348 (2009) (and cases cited therein).
​
In Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Lake Shore Investors, 298 Md. 611, 621 (1984), the Court of Appeals expressly adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774A. The Rite Aid Court said, Section 774A reduces Prosser’s view to specifics. It provides: “(1) One who is liable to another for interference with a contract or prospective contractual relation is liable for damages for (a) the pecuniary loss of the benefits of the contract or the prospective relation; (b) consequential losses for which the interference is a legal cause; and (c) emotional distress or actual harm to reputation, if they are reasonably to be expected to result from the interference. (2) In an action for interference with a contract by inducing or causing a third person to break the contract with the other, the fact that the third person is liable for the breach does not affect the amount of damages awardable against the actor; but any damages in fact paid by the third person will reduce the damages actually recoverable on the judgment.” Comment a points out that “[T]his Section states only the rules applicable to the recovery of compensatory damages. Since the tort is an intentional one, punitive damages are recovered in these actions under appropriate circumstances.” Id. at 620 (footnote omitted).
1 Comment
Findom Oregon link
2/26/2021 04:47:29 pm

Appreciate you bblogging this

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    All of our blogs are written in house by our attorneys and administrative staff.

    Archives

    June 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019

    Categories

    All
    Appellate Practice
    Civil Litigation
    Litigation

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    RSS Feed

We Would Love to Have You Visit Soon!


Hours

M-F: 8:30am - 5pm

Telephone

301-588-7717

Email

mcdermom@sslawfirm.com
Address
5405 Twin Knolls Road, Suite 5, Columbia, MD 21045
Content copyright 2016. Saunders & Schmieler Law Offices. All rights reserved.   DC | MD | VA