Civil Model Jury Charge 3.30C UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
WRONGFUL
ACT — DEFINITION
In determining whether the defendant
committed a wrongful act, the ultimate inquiry is whether defendant
unjustifiably interfered with plaintiff’s fair opportunity to conduct his/her
legitimate business affairs.
Everyone has a right to enjoy the
fruits and advantages of his/her own enterprise, industry and skill, free from
unjustified and wrongful interference.
(He/She has no right to be protected against fair and legitimate
competition).
Thus, the law protects a
person in the pursuit of his/her livelihood.
(True, he/she cannot complain of every disappointment; others too, may
further their equal interests, if the means are fair).
If the act complained of does not rest
upon some legitimate interest, or if there is sharp dealing or over-reaching,
or other conduct below the behavior of fair men similarly situated, the ensuing
loss to the plaintiff should be redressed.
Hence one who unjustifiably interferes
with the contract (or reasonable expectation of economic advantage) of another
has committed a wrongful act.
Cases:
Harris v. Perl, 41 N.J.
455 (1964); Louis Schlesinger Co. v. Rice,
4 N.J. 169, 181 (1950), “a wrongful
act is any act which in the ordinary course will infringe upon the rights
of another to his/her damage, except it be done in the exercise of an equal or
superior right”; Raymond v. Cregar,
38 N.J. 472, 480 (1962), “malicious
interference is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without justification
or excuse”; Sokolay v. Edlin, 65 N.J. Super.
112, 128 (App. Div. 1961), to sustain the allegations that defendant
maliciously interfered with plaintiff’s employment there must be proof of (1)
actual interference by defendant, and (2) the malicious nature of such
interference.
