Posted By:
Cobby33I don't want to get into a pissing match about who's the better CA lawyer, since it doesn't really matter to me--but, my interpretation of the law isn't wrong, as we are working under the same elements.
You correctly point out that one must prove:
2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Thus, you HAVE TO show that the "interfering" party KNEW that there was an actual VALID contract between the two SPECIFIC parties and that they had SPECIFIC INTENT to have one (or both) of the parties breach the contract. This is usually very difficult to prove, which is why it rarely succeeds.
Again, my point is not to issue a treatise on contract law. It is just to remind everyone that we should reserve judgment on who wronged who until we are 100% sure of the facts (and for that matter, the law).