Application of Rule of Law to Case Studies | Law homework help

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.

Upload the following documents:

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