Interference with Contract versus Interference with Business Relations

Tortious interference with a contract or business expectancy requires (1) a contract or valid business expectancy, (2) defendant’s knowledge of the contract or relationship, (3) a breach induced or caused by defendant’s intentional interference, (4) absence of justification and (5) damages. Bishop & Assocs., LLC v. Ameren Corp., 520 S.W.3d 463, 472 (Mo. 2017). 
While not often appreciated, there is a distinction between tortious interference with a contract versus tortious interference with business relations. Indeed, Missouri treats these claims as separate and distinct causes of action. Honigmann v. Hunter Grp., Inc., 733 S.W.2d 799, 807-08 (MO. Ct. App. 1987). Interference with a contract refers to the defendant’s intrusion on an existing contract. City Bank & Trust Co. v. Thomas, 735 S.W.2d 121, 122-23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). As such, the plaintiff must plead and prove a valid contract that was in effect at the time of the induced breach. Interference with a business expectancy pertains to the defendant’s interference with a reasonable expectancy of future financial benefit. Stehno v. Spring Spectrum, L.P., 186 S.W.3d 247, 250-51 (Mo. 2006). Accordingly, the plaintiff must prove that the expctancy was reasonable and valid under the circumstances alleged. 
Contact with questions. 

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