Issue: Under Minnesota law, what is required to state a viable claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage?
|Area of Law:||Business Organizations & Contracts|
|Keywords:||Claim of tortious interference; Prospective advantage; Contractual relationship|
|Cited Cases:||313 N.W.2d 628|
To establish a claim of tortious interference with a prospective business relationship (or prospective advantage), a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) a defendant intentionally and improperly committed a wrongful act; (2) that act interfered with the plaintiff’s prospective contractual relationship; and (3) the plaintiff suffered pecuniary harm. United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson, 313 N.W.2d 628, 632-33 (Minn. 1982).
The existence of an actual contractual relationship is immaterial because tortious interference with prospective advantage, does not have an element requiring the existence of a current contract. United Wild Rice, 313 N.W.2d at 632-33.