Tortious Interference is the act of intentionally interfering with someone’s business. Intentional interference may directly interfere with a business deal, interfere with day-to-

2 Application of Rule of Law to Case Studies

2.5 – Case Study Analysis: Tortious Interference

Please read through all sections before proceeding to the next page, and refer back whenever necessary.

· Overview

· Assignment

· The Case

· Submit

Tortious Interference

Tortious Interference is the act of intentionally interfering with someone's business. Intentional interference may directly interfere with a business deal, interfere with day-to-day operations, or spread false claims about the business. Tortious interference with a contract happens when a person, not a party to an original contract, somehow influences one of the contracting parties to breach their contractual duty. This situation is only applicable where there is a written contract between two or more parties. Tortious Interference exists where there is an intrusion into the contractual relationship between two other parties that is so egregious as to allow the harmed party to file a civil lawsuit under a "Tort" claim. Tortious Interference is a civil matter handled by the civil courts.

Tortious Interference is all about intent. If a person appears to interfere but does not intend to cause harm, there are no grounds to sue for Tortious Interference. However, if a person intentionally interferes with a third-party business operation, the interferer is guilty of tortious interference. The case in the next section is critical to your understanding of analyzing Tortious Interference issues and will assist in your completion of the IRAC Assignment.

Please proceed to the  Assignment section.

Tortious Interference with a Contract

Tortious Interference with a contract happens when a third party influences one of the parties to a contract to breach the contract. Tortious Interference only applies when a written contract between two or more parties is interfered with by a non-party to the contract.

Study the following two cases that demonstrate how courts analyze Tortious Interference. The two cases should be incorporated in your analysis of the case study assignment. Failure to do so will impact your grade. The below cases are useful examples and provide critical language that analyzes and applies the Tortious Interference Rule of Law:

· Florian Greenhouse, Inc v. Cardinal IG Corporation (Justia)Links to an external site.

· Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (Justia)Links to an external site.

Please follow these steps to complete this assignment:

1. Download the  IRAC Worksheet (DOCX). Download IRAC Worksheet (DOCX).

2. Read the case carefully and complete an IRAC based on the facts.

3. Additionally, answer the ten (10) questions listed on the case Tab.

4. Use the  IRAC Worksheet form as your guide in analyzing the case.

Proceed to  The Case section.

Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. and Aromatic Farms have a longstanding exclusive contract to produce and deliver their "Triple-A" moonshine-infused coffee beans.

The Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. and Aromatic Farms contract requires delivery of all beans foreign and domestic produced on Aromatic Farms to Moonshine's distribution warehouses for processing and redelivery to Moonshines Coffeehouses. The parties agree that the price per pallet will be $3000 with a guarantee of 4,000 pallets minimum. MJGreen House, Inc., a competitor of Aromatic, approaches Moonshine and informs Moonshine that Aromatic is undercutting Moonshine by withholding 10% of Aromatic's worldwide coffee bean production for sale to Moonshine's competitor coffeehouse Star Tracks Inc. for $2000 per pallet.

As a result of this information, Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. cancels the Aromatic contract refusing to purchase any additional pallets from Aromatic. Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. enters into a new agreement with MJGreen House, Inc., agreeing to purchase the exact quantities of beans from MJGreen House, Inc.

1. What are the issues in this case?

2. What is the applicable Rule of law under these facts?

3. Would Aromatic have the Standing to sue MJGreen House, Inc for Tortious Interference with the contract because MJGreen's actions persuaded Moonshine to breach the Aromatic contract?

4. Would it make a difference if the information were true?

5. What if the statement by MJGreen House, Inc., were false any different outcome?

6. What would Aromatic have to prove to be able to establish a prima facie case for Tortious Interference and hold MJGreen liable for Tortious Interference with the contract?

7. Was there an existing contract or reasonable expectations of economic benefit or advantage between Aromatic Farms and Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc.?

8. What would Defendant MJGreen House, Inc., have to have known to be guilty of breach of contract to establish Tortious Interference?

9. What losses can Aromatic Farms claim?

10. What facts confirm that MJGreen House, Inc. knew about Aromatic Farms' contract with Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc.?

Please proceed to the  Submit section.

Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. and Aromatic Farms have a longstanding exclusive contract to produce and deliver their "Triple-A" moonshine-infused coffee beans.

The Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. and Aromatic Farms contract requires delivery of all beans foreign and domestic produced on Aromatic Farms to Moonshine's distribution warehouses for processing and redelivery to Moonshines Coffeehouses. The parties agree that the price per pallet will be $3000 with a guarantee of 4,000 pallets minimum. MJGreen House, Inc., a competitor of Aromatic, approaches Moonshine and informs Moonshine that Aromatic is undercutting Moonshine by withholding 10% of Aromatic's worldwide coffee bean production for sale to Moonshine's competitor coffeehouse Star Tracks Inc. for $2000 per pallet.

As a result of this information, Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. cancels the Aromatic contract refusing to purchase any additional pallets from Aromatic. Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. enters into a new agreement with MJGreen House, Inc., agreeing to purchase the exact quantities of beans from MJGreen House, Inc.

1. What are the issues in this case?

2. What is the applicable Rule of law under these facts?

3. Would Aromatic have the Standing to sue MJGreen House, Inc for Tortious Interference with the contract because MJGreen's actions persuaded Moonshine to breach the Aromatic contract?

4. Would it make a difference if the information were true?

5. What if the statement by MJGreen House, Inc., were false any different outcome?

6. What would Aromatic have to prove to be able to establish a prima facie case for Tortious Interference and hold MJGreen liable for Tortious Interference with the contract?

7. Was there an existing contract or reasonable expectations of economic benefit or advantage between Aromatic Farms and Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc.?

8. What would Defendant MJGreen House, Inc., have to have known to be guilty of breach of contract to establish Tortious Interference?

9. What losses can Aromatic Farms claim?

10. What facts confirm that MJGreen House, Inc. knew about Aromatic Farms' contract with Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc.?

Please proceed to the  Submit section.

Upload the following documents:

An  IRAC Analysis of the Tortious Interference Case Study, incorporating the ten (10) questions in your RAC Issues analysis.

,

Read all the three mini-cases in the next section carefully. Each case has only one issue, and only one defined term applies to this assignment. After identifying the issue, analyze the applicable defined term to the facts of the mini-case using the IRAC format. Using the defined term's elements, explain why the term applies to the specific facts, analyze the facts, and determine the outcome. Support all responses with primary legal authoritative citations. While other terms may also apply under the facts, only one term supports the motion or action detailed in the facts and is the main focus in this mini-case assignment. Do not analyze any other questions associated with the case studies.

Apply your case analysis using the IRAC format. Complete your answers by filling in the  IRAC Worksheet (DOCX).  Download IRAC Worksheet (DOCX). Download a separate worksheet for each case study and complete it.

XYA Corporation Case Study

XYA Corporation discovered that ZZZ Inc., a competitor, is producing a new widget gadget. XYA believed that the widget gadget contained parts owned by XYA under their patent. XYA filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for an expedited review to determine whether the court will grant an injunction against ZZZ to stop the imminent escalation of production. As a part of the preliminary hearing in federal court, XYA asked the court to allow it to obtain a copy of the official gadget blueprint specifications to determine if the case should continue. Under what procedure would XYA be permitted to receive the plans?

Suzy Que Case Study

Suzy Que resides in North Carolina, a state that supplies most vape chemicals used in the new smoking pipes. Suzy sued the company VapAttack Inc., which manufactures and supplies Vape chemicals. Suzy sued VapAttack Inc. in federal court in the county in which she resides. Suzy lives in the same county where the majority of tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers are located. VapAttack Inc. filed a motion with the federal court for a change of venue, asking the court to change the location of the lawsuit to the county where its headquarters resides. What grounds are available to VapAttack Inc., that support a motion for a change of venue by a defendant to the company's business location? Name and describe the motion(s) available to defendant VapAttack Inc. Discuss the potential grounds for removal the court would review in deciding the motion?

Wegotit Inc Case Study

Jake Salesman is a sales manager at Wegotit, Inc. The company's SVP provided Jake and other team leaders with a copy of the company's new sales forecast for the fourth quarter. The SVP distributed information related to the third-quarter results to the team leaders. The company's performance was well below the profitable goals set by the president of the company. If the target goals are achieved, it will keep the company liquid for the rest of the year. As a result of the third quarter's low performance, the company now faces massive layoffs unless the sales team doubles its efforts by the end of the fourth quarter. The SVP interpreted the President of the company's message as meaning they had to do everything possible to regain the market share. The SVP indicated to the team leaders that they were personally responsible for the survival of the company. The highlight of his presentation came when he told everyone in the room that they were to recover the market share "by any means necessary." The President said they should leave no stone unturned and let no rule stand in their way. Jake set up a meeting with his team to go over the individual quotas for which his members were responsible. Before the meeting with the SVP ended, the SVP indicated that he wanted every team leader to repeat his call to duty to reach the goals. If Jake Salesman follows the SVP's directives, what else should Jake consider discussing with his team during this meeting, and why? What legal issues could potentially create a problem if the team took the phrase "by any means necessary," literally?  Hint: Review the Ethics chapter in the textbook for research:  Business Law and the Legal Environment v. 1.0 (Github).Links to an external site.