C. Elements Defined
1. A Contract
There must be a valid and enforceable contract for a cause of action for tortious interference with an existing contractual relationship to exist.3 If there is no contract, there is no cause of action.4 A contract terminable at will satisfies the requirement5 as will, apparently, an oral contract.6
Under the "stranger doctrine," the plaintiff has to show the defendant was a stranger to both the contract at issue and the business relationship that gave rise to and underpinned the contract.7
2. Knowledge of the Contract by the Tortfeasor
The plaintiff must show the defendant had knowledge of the contract at issue.8 It would appear that the defendant's knowledge of the existence of a contract may be implied.9
3. Intentional Procurement by the Tortfeasor of the Contract's Breach
An essential element of an intentional interference with contract claim is a breach.10 For a cause of action to arise the breach must be intentionally procured.11 It is not necessary that the defendant intend harm, only that he or she intend to interfere with the contract.12 The interference must be for an improper purpose or by improper methods.13
South Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for "recovery of pure pecuniary harm resulting from a tortfeasor's negligent interference with the plaintiff's contractual relations."14 (emphasis added). Regardless of the defendant's behavior, there must actually be a breach of the underlying contract before there can be an interference with an existing contractual relationship.15 Where a third party had fully performed its obligations under an agreement by delivering a check to the plaintiff, the defendant, by attaching the check, did not procure a breach because the third party did not breach.16
4. Absence of Justification
Generally, the burden of proving justification is on the defendant.17 The absence of justification may be inferred. Where the plaintiff had attempted in good faith to resolve a prior dispute with the defendant, there was an adequate basis to infer that the defendant interfered in the contract without justification.18
It may be difficult to separate tortious interference from legitimate business competition. One decision suggested a defendant might argue its actions constituted proper, and therefore justifiable, business competition.19
Interference is justified when it is motivated by a legitimate business purpose.20 The good faith exercise of a legal right by a party to a contract provides no basis for an action for intentional interference with a contract despite the fact it causes a third party not to perform another contract with the plaintiff.21 Where, for example, the plaintiffs purchased property from the defendants, and then sold portions of the property to third parties who were to make payments directly to the defendants to pay the mortgage held by defendants, the court held as a matter of law that the defendants' communication to the third parties that payments - some of which had been late - would no longer be accepted and that the defendants intended to foreclose on the plaintiffs was justified.22
5. Damages
An essential element of the tort of interference with a contractual relationship is that damages resulted from the breach.23 Where the damages alleged are lost profits, the plaintiff must prove: "(1) that it is reasonably certain that profits would have been realized but for the tort and (2) that such lost profits can be ascertained and measured from the evidence produced with reasonable certainty."24
--------
Notes:
[3] Columbia Management Corp. v. Resort Prop., Inc., 279 S.C. 370, 307 S.E.2d 228 (1983); Parker v. Brown, 195 S.C. 35, 10 S.E.2d 625 (1940); Chitwood v. McMillian, 189 S.C. 262, 1 S.E.2d 162 (1939); Love v. Gamble, 316 S.C. 203, 448 S.E.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1994) (no evidence of express or implied contract); Jackson v. Bi-Lo Stores, Inc., 313 S.C. 272, 437 S.E.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1993) (contract which contravenes public policy is void and action cannot be maintained for inducing its breach).
[4] Columbia Management Corp. v. Resort Prop., Inc., 279 S.C. 370, 307 S.E.2d 228 (1983); Jackson v. Bi-Lo Stores, Inc., 313 S.C. 272, 437 S.E.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1993).
[5] Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 287 S.C. 190, 336 S.E.2d 472 (1985); Bocook Outdoor Media, Inc. v. Summey Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 294 S.C. 169, 363 S.E.2d 390 (Ct. App. 1987), overruled on other grounds, O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993); Keels v. Powell, 207 S.C....
