A tortious interference with a contract happens when a person who is not a party to a contract somehow influences one of the contract parties to breach the contract. This only applies where there is a written contract between two or more parties. Consider the following example of tortious interference with a contract: Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. and Aromatic Farms have a longstanding exclusive contract for the production and delivery of their "triple A" moonshine infused coffee beans. Their contract calls for the delivery of all beans produced domestic and foreign on Aromatic Farm's to Moonshines distribution warehouses for processing and redelivery to Moonshines Coffeehouses. The parties agree that the price per pallet will be $3000 with guarantee of 4000 pallet minimum. MJGreen House, Inc. a competitor of Aromatic approaches Moonshine and informs them that Aromatic is undercutting Moonshine by withholding 10% of their worldwide farm production for sale to its competitor coffeehouse Star Tracks Inc. for $2000 per pallet. Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. as a result of this information cancels the contract with Aromatic refusing to purchase any further pallets from Aromatic unless Aromatic provides the entire farm yield as agreed. Would Aromatic have standing to sue MJGreen House, Inc. for tortious interference with contract because MJGreen's actions made Moonshine decide to breach the contract? What would Aromatic have to prove to be able to hold MJGreen liable for tortious interference with the contract?

USING THE FOLLOWING FORMAT ANALYZE THE CASE STUDY

IRAC/CRAC

What is it?

Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion OR Conclusion, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

Method for organizing legal analysis so that the reader can follow your argument

Especially helpful in writing exams (IRAC) and legal memos (CRAC).

How to do it?

As an example, we will look at whether someone can sue for battery as a result of inhaling

second-hand smoke. The issue we will look at is whether there is contact, which is required for a

battery claim.

Issue

First state the question or problem that you are trying to answer (what might bring the parties

into court). This can be in the form of a question or a statement depending on what your reader

prefers. Examples:

o "There is an issue as to whether contact occurred when the plaintiff inhaled the secondhand

smoke."

o "Does contact occur when one inhales second-hand smoke created by another?"

However, in legal memos, one may state the conclusion up front (in case the reader is too busy

to read through the entire analysis. Some professors also prefer that you state the conclusion

up front.

Rule

State the rule or legal principle. This may take the form of stating the elements required for a

prima facie case.

o "The prima facie case for battery requires the following elements: an act, intent,

contact, causation, and harm."

Some professors do not want you to explicitly state the rule (i.e., "The rule is..."). Rather, they

prefer that you imply it in your answer. In other words, cut to the chase by focusing your rule

statement on the part of the rule or element that is at issue.

o "The offense of battery requires contact with the plaintiff's person."

Analysis

This is where you state your evidence and explain how you will arrive at your conclusion. You

may cite other cases, discuss policy implications, and discuss (discount?) cases that run counter

to your conclusion.

Make sure that you weigh both sides and make counterarguments where appropriate.

Use case law, analogizing and distinguishing, and policy (for example, the goals of tort law) to

work your way to a conclusion.

o "In Howe v. Ahn, the court held that noxious bus fumes inhaled by a passerby constitute

harmful and offensive contact. Although the court has not extended this holding to a

case involving second-hand smoke, numerous cases have likened second-hand smoke to

air pollution (for example, Fox v. Abernathy). Policy considerations also favor finding

contact in the present case. If one can prove harm as a result of inhaling second-hand

smoke, it is better for the smoker to compensate the victim than burden the state."

Conclusion: