Illinois Courts Hold That Interference of a Business Relationship May Constitute Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
The First District Illinois Appellate Court held that the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage recognizes that a person's business relationships constitute a property interest, and as such, are entitled to protection from unjustified tampering by another. The Film and Tape Works, Inc. v. Junetwenty Films, Inc., 368 Ill.App.3d 462 (1st Dist. 2006). Illinois courts have held to plead a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a valid business relationship or plaintiff's reasonable expectancy of entering into a valid business relationship; (2) defendant's knowledge of the relationship or defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s expectancy to enter into a valid business relationship; (3) intentional interference by defendant inducing termination of the relationship or preventing the expectancy from ripening into a valid business relationship; and (4) damage to plaintiff as a result of the interference. Illinois Jurisprudence, Personal Injury and Torts § 14:12.
In order to allege a reasonable business expectancy, a plaintiff must plead facts to show interference of a business relationship with a specific third party or an identifiable prospective class of third persons. Illinois Jurisprudence, Personal Injury and Torts § 14:13. If the interference is of an incidental nature, rather than an intentional nature, a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage will fail. Illinois Jurisprudence, Personal Injury and Torts § 14:12. Interference with prospective economic advantages requires action toward a third party that results in interference with the prospective relationship. Illinois Jurisprudence, Personal Injury and Torts § 14:13.
Furthermore, interference with prospective economic advantage implies a balancing of societal values, where an individual has a general duty not to interfere in the business affairs of another. The Film and Tape Works, Inc. v. Junetwenty Films, Inc., 368 Ill.App.3d 462 (1st Dist. 2006). However, he may be privileged to interfere, depending on his purpose and methods, when the interference takes a socially sanctioned form, such as lawful competition. The Film and Tape Works, Inc. v. Junetwenty Films, Inc., 368 Ill.App.3d 462 (1st Dist. 2006). In addition, when a business relationship affords the parties no enforceable expectations, but only the hope of continued benefits, the parties must allow for the rights of others, and they therefore have no cause of action against a competitor unless the circumstances indicate unfair competition or an unprivileged interference with prospective advantage. The Film and Tape Works, Inc. v. Junetwenty Films, Inc., 368 Ill.App.3d 462 (1st Dist. 2006). The opportunity to obtain customers is an expectancy protected by the tort of interference with a business expectancy. Illinois Jurisprudence, Personal Injury and Torts § 14:12.
Informational Purposes Only: The content of this writing was prepared by Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC for informational purposes only. The content of this writing is not intended to constitute and does not constitute legal advice. Reading the content of this writing or communicating with our office staff or attorneys by telephone, fax or e-mail does not make you a client of Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC. To become a client, you must sign and return our governing engagement agreement. Persons reading the content of this writing should not act upon this information without contacting and speaking with an attorney. Do not issue or provide us with confidential information until an attorney-client relationship has been formally established with our firm.
