Law homework help
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: Look at the two cases below to see how the courts look at Tortious Interference. You should look at the two cases as part of your analysis of the case study assignment. If you don’t, your grade will suffer. The cases below are good examples and show how to use and analyze critical language.
Florian Greenhouse, Inc v. Cardinal IG Corporation (Justia) (Links to an external site.)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/11/521/2289301/
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (Justia)
https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1990/406-mass-811-3.html
Please follow these steps to complete this assignment:
Download the IRAC Worksheet
Read the case carefully.
Answer the questions listed after the case.
Use the IRAC Worksheet form as your guide in analyzing the case
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.
What are the issues in this case?
What is the applicable Rule of law under these facts?
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?
Would it make a difference if the information were true?
What if the statement by MJGreen House, Inc., were false any different outcome?
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?
Was there an existing contract or reasonable expectations of economic benefit or advantage between Aromatic Farms and Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc.?
What would Defendant MJGreen House, Inc., have to have known to be guilty of breach of contract to establish Tortious Interference?
What losses can Aromatic Farms claim?
What facts confirm that MJGreen House, Inc. knew about Aromatic Farms’ contract with Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc.?
Upload the following documents:
An IRAC Analysis of the Tortious Interference Case Study, incorporating the eleven (11) questions in your RAC Issues analysis.
