Interference with Business Contracts/Expectancy

Missouri case law has established situations where an individual or business can be liable for interfering with contractual or business relationships. The civil tort of tortious interference with business expectancy requires a few elements: there must be a (1) valid existing contract or business expectancy; (2) the defendant has knowledge of the existing contract or business expectancy; (3) a breach of contract is induced or caused by the defendant’s intentional interference; (4) there is no justification for the breach; and (5) there are ascertainable damages from the breach. Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo.1993).
For the first element, there generally needs to be an existing contractual relationship because in our market economy the law encourages prospective business competition. For the second, the defendant has to have specific knowledge of the business/contract relationship, and, despite this knowledge, still acts intentionally to disrupt and breach the relationship.
Perhaps the most crucial thing to note is that for business expectancy the expectancy cannot be one that is merely subjective (i.e., a hope). Rather, it must be an objective, reasonable expectancy.

This lawsuit is not one that is easily established. Missouri law, and the law of just about every other State, promotes business activity and the creation of new business relationships. Accordingly, to make a submissible case, the elements have to be clear. It’s okay to have good-faith competition between businesses, but it’s quite another to intentionally disrupt a business relationship for the purposes of breaching a contract/business expectancy.
Because this cause of action is founded in case precedent, much of the answers and intricacies of this tort are only discovered after a judicious study of court opinions.

Related Articles

Future Lost Profits

February 18, 2023

The purpose of damages (i.e., a money award from a judge/jury) is to make a plaintiff whole. With a contract case, for instance, the goal is to “restore a plaintiff to the position he would have been in had the contract not been breached.” Lipton Rlty v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 705 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Mo….

Read More

Anticipatory Breach by Repudation

November 9, 2022

A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to adhere to the requirements of a contract. Missouri recognizes the concept of anticipatory breach of contract by repudiation. An anticipatory breach is the equivalent of an actual breach of contract. TDV Transp., Inc. v. Keel, 966 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998).  Generally, to establish…

Read More

Merger Doctrine, Contracts

March 8, 2022

A “merger clause” is a common provision in a contract. It will usually state something along the lines of the contract being a “complete and exclusive statement of the agreement.” If a contract is a final, complete agreement, the parol evidence rule prohibits prior or contemporaneous oral agreements which vary or contradict the written terms…

Read More

Aggrieved Party, Right to Appeal

January 19, 2022

Any “aggrieved” party to a final judgment may appeal. Section 512.020, RSMo. To be “aggrieved,” certain requirements must be present. The judgment must “operate prejudicially and directly on the party’s personal or property rights or interests, and such effect must be immediate, not merely a possible remote consequence.” Bi-State Development Agency of Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan Dist….

Read More
Scroll to Top