Instructions
M Civ JI 125.01 Tortious Interference with Contract: Elements
M Civ JI 125.02 Tortious Interference with Contract: Contract/Consideration—Definitions
M Civ JI 125.03 Tortious Interference with Contract: Intent—Definition
M Civ JI 125.04 Tortious Interference with Contract: Improper—Definition
M Civ JI 125.05 Tortious Interference with Contract: Breach—Definition
Plaintiff claims that defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with plaintiff’s contract with [name of other party to contract]. In order to establish the claim, plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following:
- Plaintiff had a contract with [name of other party to contract] at the time of the claimed interference.
- Defendant knew of the contract at that time.
- Defendant intentionally interfered with the contract.
- Defendant improperly interfered with the contract.
- Defendant’s conduct caused [name of breaching party] to breach the contract.
- Plaintiff was damaged as a result of defendant’s conduct.
Your verdict will be for plaintiff if you find that plaintiff has proved all of these elements.
Your verdict will be for defendant if you find that plaintiff has failed to prove any one of these elements.
Note on Use
If the validity of a contract is an issue, this instruction must be modified.
Comment
This instruction is supported by Jim-Bob, Inc v Mehling, 178 Mich App 71, 95–96; 443 NW2d 451 (1989); Woody v Tamer, 158 Mich App 764, 773–774; 405 NW2d 213 (1987); and Trepel v Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital, 135 Mich App 361, 374; 354 NW2d 341 (1984).
For a discussion of knowledge or constructive knowledge in the context of a claim of tortious interference with contract, see Restatement (Second) of Torts §766 cmt i, at 11–12.
History
A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a particular thing in exchange for adequate consideration. The agreement may be oral or in writing.
When I use the words “adequate consideration,” I mean a benefit for one party to the contract or a loss sustained or a responsibility assumed by the other party to the contract.
Note on Use
Additional instructions may be required depending on the facts of the case.
Comment
The definition of contract comes from McInerney v Detroit Trust Co, 279 Mich 42, 46; 271 NW 545 (1937).
The definition of consideration comes from Levitz v Capitol Savings & Loan Co, 267 Mich 92, 96; 255 NW 166 (1934), and Dow Chemical Co v Dept of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 468; 462 NW2d 765 (1990).
If no contract exists, an action for tortious interference with contract cannot be maintained. Williams v DeMan, 7 Mich App 71; 151 NW2d 247 (1967). An action for tortious interference with contract may be maintained if there is a contract, even though plaintiff is not able to enforce it for reasons such as the statute of frauds. Northern Plumbing & Heating, Inc v Henderson Bros, Inc, 83 Mich App 84, 92–93; 268 NW2d 296 (1978). But see Restatement (Second) of Torts §766 cmt f, at 10, for the distinction between void and voidable contracts.
History
When I say that plaintiff must prove that defendant intentionally interfered with the contract, I mean that
- defendant’s primary, but not necessarily sole, purpose was to cause [name of breaching party] to breach the contract, or
- defendant acted knowing that [his / her] conduct was certain or substantially certain to cause [name of breaching party] to breach the contract.
Comment
This instruction is adapted from Restatement (Second) of Torts §766 cmt j, at 12. See also Derosia v Austin, 115 Mich App 647, 654; 321 NW2d 760 (1982); Formall, Inc v Community National Bank of Pontiac, 166 Mich App 772, 781; 421 NW2d 289 (1988).
History
Improper interference is conduct that is fraudulent, not lawful, not ethical, or not justified under any circumstances. If defendant’s conduct was lawful, it is still improper if it was done without justification and for the purpose of interfering with plaintiff’s contractual rights, but plaintiff must specifically show affirmative acts by defendant that corroborate that defendant had the wrongful purpose of interfering with plaintiff’s contractual rights.
Comment
See Feldman v Green, 138 Mich App 360; 360 NW2d 881 (1984); Formall, Inc v Community National Bank of Pontiac, 166 Mich App 772, 780; 421 NW2d 289 (1988). See also Trepel v Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital, 135 Mich App 361, 374; 354 NW2d 341 (1984); Weitting v McFeeters, 104 Mich App 188, 198; 304 NW2d 525 (1981); Feaheny v Caldwell, 175 Mich App 291, 304; 437 NW2d 358 (1989); Wilkinson v Powe, 300 Mich 275; 1 NW2d 539 (1942); Bahr v Miller Bros Creamery, 365 Mich 415; 112 NW2d 463 (1961).
In determining whether defendant’s conduct was improper, courts have considered the following factors:
- the nature of defendant’s conduct;
- defendant’s motive or reasons for its actions;
- the interests of plaintiff with which the defendant’s conduct allegedly interfered;
- the interests that defendant sought to advance;
- society’s interest in (a) protecting the freedom of defendant to engage in such conduct, and (b) protecting contractual relationships, business relationships, or expectancies such as that held or sought by plaintiff;
- how directly defendant’s conduct influenced the breaching party; and
- the nature of the relationships of plaintiff, defendant, and the other party to the contract.
In appropriate cases, instructions dealing with these factors may be given. This list of factors is consistent with the view of the Michigan courts that the preferred guidelines are those articulated in §767 of Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is increasingly endorsed by Michigan courts. See, e.g., Jim-Bob, Inc v Mehling, 178 Mich App 71, 96–97; 443 NW2d 451 (1989); Woody v Tamer, 158 Mich App 764, 775; 405 NW2d 213 (1987).
History
“Breach” means the failure to perform a promise, duty, or obligation that is required and due under a contract.
Note on Use
If there is a claim of anticipatory breach, partial breach, or any other reason why this instruction should not be read to the jury, an alternative instruction must be substituted.
Comment
Woody v Tamer, 158 Mich App 764, 774–775; 405 NW2d 213 (1987).
History