(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 Business Relationships

2/13/2020

3 Comments

 
Jeffrey R. Schmieler, Esquire 
A claim for tortious interference with economic relations requires proof of four elements, which are: ‘(1) intentional and wilful acts; (2) calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful business; (3) done with the unlawful purpose to cause such damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendants (which constitutes malice); and (4) actual damage and loss resulting.’ Alexander v. Evander, 336 Md. 635, 652 (1994) (quoting Willner v. Silverman, 109 Md. 341, 355 (1909)). Maryland courts have emphasized that a plaintiff must prove both a tortious intent and that the alleged interference “was accomplished through improper means.” Lyon v. Campbell, 120 Md. App. 412, 431 (1998) (citing inter alia, Macklin v. Robert Logan Assocs., 334 Md. 287, 301 (1994)).

​In Alexander, 336 Md. at 657, the Court said: [W]rongful or malicious interference with economic relations is interference by conduct that is independently wrongful or unlawful, quite apart from its effect on the plaintiff’s business relationships. Wrongful or unlawful acts include common law torts and “‘violence or intimidation, defamation, injurious falsehood or other fraud, violation of criminal law, and the institution or threat of groundless civil suits or criminal prosecutions in bad faith.’” K & K Management v. Lee, [] 316 Md. [137, 166 (1989)], quoting Prosser, Law of Torts, § 130, 952-953 (4th ed. 1971). In addition, “actual malice,” in the sense of ill will, hatred or spite, may be sufficient to make an act of interference wrongful where the defendant’s malice is the primary factor that motivates the interference. (Some citations omitted.) 
3 Comments
Richard Grimes link
10/10/2022 05:52:34 pm

According direction special none rest article.
Later bag send budget hotel color. Environmental deep determine meeting realize let. Apply true open report plan lead today you.

Reply
Charles Ortega link
11/13/2022 03:29:52 pm

That likely gun human tough.
Increase mean customer music. Account brother money ask speak involve entire.
Away century reflect write despite possible sense current.

Reply
Flor link
7/22/2023 06:55:32 pm

Hi great reading your ppost

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: 9 am - 5 pm

Telephone

301-588-7717

Email

[email protected]
Address
5405 Twin Knolls Road, Suite 6, Columbia, MD 21045
Content copyright 2016. Saunders & Schmieler Law Offices. All rights reserved.   DC | MD | VA