Legal Memorandum: Tortious Interference with Prospective Advantage

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
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Cited Cases: 313 N.W.2d 628
Cited Statutes: None
Date: 03/01/2014

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.


Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)