M Civ JI 126.04 Tortious Interference with Business Relationship or Expectancy: Improper - Definition

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 business relationship or expectancy, but plaintiff must specifically show affirmative acts by defendant that corroborate that defendant had the wrongful purpose of interfering with plaintiff’s business relationship or expectancy.

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:

1. the nature of defendant’s conduct;

2. defendant’s motive or reasons for its actions;

3. the interests of plaintiff with which the defendant’s conduct allegedly interfered;

4. the interests that defendant sought to advance;

5. 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;

6. how directly defendant’s conduct influenced the breaching party; and

7. 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

M Civ JI 126.04 was added March 1993. Amended March 1994.