Civil Model Jury Charge 3.30A UNLAWFUL
INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE model jury charge
The
right of a person to pursue a lawful business and to enjoy the fruits and
advantages of one’s industry or efforts are rights which the law protects
against unjustified and wrongful interference by another person.
Thus, the law protects a person’s interest in reasonable expectations of
economic advantage.
In
order that the plaintiff may recover damages for a wrongful act, such wrongful
act must be found to have interfered with a reasonable expectancy of economic
advantage or benefit on the part of the plaintiff.
Thus, plaintiff must prove the
following elements:
1. The
existence of a reasonable expectation of economic advantage or benefit
belonging or accruing to the plaintiff;
2. That the defendant had knowledge of such
expectancy of economic advantage;
3. That
the defendant wrongfully and without justification interfered with plaintiff’s
expectancy of economic advantage or benefit;
4. That
in the absence of the wrongful act of the defendant it is reasonably probable
that the plaintiff would have realized his/her economic advantage or benefit (i.e., effected the sale of the property
and received a commission); and
5. That
the plaintiff sustained damages as a result thereof.
It
is for you to determine, therefore, whether the plaintiff has established by a
preponderance of the evidence all of the elements outlined above. If you so find, then you should return a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Otherwise, you should find for the defendant.
Cases:
Harris v.
Perl, 41 N.J. 455 (1964); Middlesex Concrete, etc., Corp. v. Carteret
Industrial Ass’n., 37 N.J. 507 (1962); Raymond v. Cregar, 38 N.J. 472 (1962);
Rainier’s Dairies v. Raritan Val. Farms, 19 N.J. 552 (1955); Myers v. Arcadio,
Inc., 73 N.J. Super. 493 (App. Div. 1962); Independent Dairy Workers Union of
Hightstown v. Milk Drivers, etc., Local No. 680 30 N.J. 173 (1959); Restatement
(Second) of Torts, Section 766 (1939).
