Interfering With Someone Else’s NJ Business Opportunities Could Get You Sued
Tortious interference with a business relationship is the fancy legal term for causing someone to lose out on a business opportunity. If there’s enough evidence to support such a claim, you could be sued and forced to pay the alleged victim what they lost because of your actions. Parties in these cases could be individuals or companies.
These cases are considered “legal torts” or civil wrongs. A tort claim is based on allegations the defendant (the party being sued) harmed the plaintiff (the party filing the lawsuit). These cases are designed to compensate the plaintiff for losses and discourage the defendant and others from repeating their wrongful actions in the future. Torts are often associated with personal injury claims, but they can also involve claims of wrongful business conduct and damages.
You Don’t Need a Binding Contract to Maintain This Cause of Action
Tortious interference with a business relationship is meant to protect your right to pursue your business or occupation without someone improperly getting in the way, according to New Jersey’s Supreme Court. The Court recently reviewed the dismissal of a complaint before a trial could take place, so the question was whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the plaintiff to go forward to trial. The Court decided the allegations were sufficient to justify a trial.
There need not be an existing contract to have a valid case. State law protects your reasonable expectations of economic advantage. New Jersey recognizes the right to own and enjoy private property. To help you achieve that, your ability to acquire it is protected too.
Proving a Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship Case
Your claim of tortious interference with a business relationship must include facts demonstrating:
- A protectable right, which would include a possible economic or contractual relationship. You must have a reasonable expectation of a financial advantage
- Intentional interference was committed with malice. This doesn’t mean the person or business had ill will towards you. Malice means the harm was inflicted intentionally without justification or excuse
- You must show the interference caused your loss of a possible gain: If there was no interference, you must prove a reasonable probability that you would’ve received anticipated economic benefits
- The defendant must be outside of the expected relationship. If there’s a contract and the other party does something improper, and you suffer, you may have a contract claim against them. Someone interfering with your business opportunities is trying to prevent you from entering a contract or a beneficial relationship
The plaintiff would need to establish these elements by a preponderance (greater weight) of the believable evidence.
Printing Company Doesn’t Walk Away from a Lost Contract. It Sues.
The case where the Supreme Court decided the plaintiff had a right to sue involved a printing company (Printing Mart) suing another printing company (Lauriett Printing), Sharp Electronics, and three of its employees. Printing Mart had a longstanding relationship with Sharp. It alleged that ended when Sharp employees worked with Lauriett to cheat Printing Mart out of a contract so Lauriett could benefit.
- A reasonable expectation of an economic advantage was at issue
Printing Mart didn’t have a right to get all of Sharp’s printing projects. But it received notice from Sharp it could bid on printing 900 copies of an ECR manual. This invitation created an opportunity it could protect from unjustifiable interference through legal action.
- The plaintiff claimed intentional acts were done with malice
The court also found that the allegations were enough to show the defendants acted intentionally and maliciously (a wrongful act was done without justification or excuse). Defendants’ actions weren’t “right” or part of “the rules of the game.” The plaintiff claimed defendants made a sham of the bidding process for printing Sharp’s ECR manuals. One defendant was accused of creating false bids by two companies to make Laurriett’s bid appear more attractive. Another allegedly told Lauriett of Printing Mart’s bid to help it compete. Lauriett was entitled to compete for Sharp’s business, but not by any means necessary.
- The complaint included claims plaintiff suffered economically
The plaintiff also alleged enough facts to show defendants’ actions caused it damage. Printing Mart claimed it submitted the lowest bid for the printing job. After the project was broken up into sections in hopes Printing Mart would lose out, its price for one section was still the lowest. The plaintiff never worked on either project.
- There were enough allegations the defendants weren’t parties to a potential contract
Printing Mart sued Sharp, which would’ve been a party to this printing contract, which would normally be a problem for its case. It also named Sharp employees as defendants. If the employees acted correctly and within the scope of their jobs, they would be considered part of Sharp, so they couldn’t be sued as individuals. But in this case, the employees were accused of acting improperly and unfairly toward the plaintiff, committing a tort outside their legitimate roles, so they could be held individually liable.
Sharp was named because Printing Mart wanted it held liable for its employees’ acts. The Court stated there wasn’t enough evidence to dismiss the corporate defendants Printing from the case.
Your Situation May Be Different, But the Same Tort May Have Happened
Each case is unique. The facts leading to litigation are limitless. One party seeks to develop business opportunities. Third parties try to take the business away or just shut down the corporate projects if they can. The only limits are the imagination of the malefactors – and the legal principles that stop them.
Often, employers defend challenged employees from legal claims when their acts are part of their duties. If you’re accused of committing this tort and taking actions outside the scope of your job, your employer could try to wash its hands of you. It could fire you based on the allegations and make you hire your own attorney to defend the claims against you.
Get the Legal Help You Need from Kingston Law Group, Attorneys You Can Trust
If you think you’re the victim of tortious interference with a business relationship or you or your business is accused of wrongdoing, contact us for a near-term, reduced rate initial consultation. It will be protected by social distancing and masks, on Zoom, or on the phone.
Call us at 609-683-7400 or write us online. We take credit cards and have general appointments from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, plus evening appointments during the week by pre-arrangement only.
We will listen to your facts, explain the law, and give you advice to maximize your social and economic justice.
Call today. You’ll be glad you did.