PJC Business

T ORTIOUS I NTERFERENCE

PJC 106.3

PJC 106.3

Wrongful Interference with Prospective Contractual or Business Relations (Comment)

The supreme court has recognized the existence of the cause of action of tortious interference with a prospective contract or business relationship. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges , 52 S.W.3d 711, 721–27 (Tex. 2001). The supreme court has defined the elements as (1) a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship with a third party, (2) the defendant either acted with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or knew the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct, (3) the defendant’s conduct was independently tortious or unlawful, (4) the interference proximately caused the plaintiff injury, and (5) the plaintiff suffered actual damage or loss as a result. Coin mach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp. , 417 S.W.3d 909, 923 (Tex. 2013). Where a contract or business relationship is delayed but eventually arises, there can be no claim for tortious interference with prospective contracts or business relation ships. Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Waste Management Holdings, Inc. , 219 S.W.3d 563, 590–91 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied). As with the claim of intentional interference with an existing contract, interference as contemplated by this cause is intentional if committed with the desire to interfere with the contract or with the belief that interference is substantially certain to result. Bradford v. Vento , 48 S.W.3d 749, 757 (Tex. 2001) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B cmt. d (1979)). However, according to the supreme court, if the actor had no desire to effectuate the interference by his conduct but knew that interference would be a mere incidental result, then the interference may not be improper. Brad ford , 48 S.W.3d at 757. The applicable damages questions are set forth in PJC 115.22, 115.37, and 115.38.

291