Scenario

Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. and Aromatic Farms have a longstanding exclusive contract for the production and delivery of their "Triple A" moonshine infused coffee beans.

The Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc. and Aromatic Farms 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 a guarantee 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 coffee beans production for sale to Moonshines' 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 further pallets from Aromatic. Moonshine Coffeehouse Inc., enters into a new agreement with MJGreen House, Inc., agreeing to purchase the same quantities from MJGreen House, Inc.

1. What are the issues in this case?
2. What is the applicable Rule of law under these facts?
3. Would Aromatic have standing to sue MJGreen House, Inc. for tortious interference with contract because MJGreen's actions persuaded Moonshine breach the Aromatic contract?
4. Would it make a difference if the information were true?
5. What if the statement by MJGreen House, Inc., were false?
6. 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 contract?
7. Was there an existing contract or reasonable expectation of economic benefit or advantage between Aromatic Farms, and Aromatic Farms?
8. What would Defendant MJGreen House, Inc., have to know to breach the contract under tortious interference?
9. What loss can Aromatic Farms claim?
10. What facts support that MJGreen House, Inc., had knowledge of the Aromatic Farms contract with Aromatic Farms?