What are the elements of the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Blank v. Kirwan, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 39 Cal.3d 311, 703 P.2d 58 (Cal. 1985):

The elements of the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third person containing the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant. (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827, 122 Cal.Rptr. 745, 537 P.2d 865.)

Other Questions


What are the elements of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage? (California, United States of America)
What are the elements of the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage? (California, United States of America)
Does Ardmore have sufficient factual substantiation to support its cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage? (California, United States of America)
What are the elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations? (California, United States of America)
What are the elements of a intentional interference with contractual relations? (California, United States of America)
What is the statute of limitations for interference with prospective economic relations? (California, United States of America)
What is the threshold requirement for maintaining a tortious interference with economic advantage cause of action? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court have a duty to give an instruction that the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the crime including the element of intent? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury need to be told that the element of offense is not a given, not a required element, and that the omission of that element is a harmless error? (California, United States of America)
Is the intent of an aider and abettor to facilitate the commission of a specific intent crime necessarily the intent to achieve a future consequence? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.