[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

With all due respect, the analysis here is entirely oversimplistic. In addition to the points raised by Cobby33, it must also be shown that the so-called interfering party had no privilege to interfere. In Arizona, and I suspect 49 other states as well (or at least those that follow the restatement of torts), competitors enjoy at least a limited privileged to interfere. It's called competition and free commerce.

Ever hear of someone breaking a lease to go down the street to a better/cheaper space? Drop out of a home purchase because he got a better deal? Happens all the time. Can the party backing out of these deals be sued for breach of contract, hell yes. It is an economic consequence that must be factored into the decision to breach the contract. Can the guy who offered the better deal be sued for interference with contract, hell no, at least absent a showing of some alterior and improper motive or means used in enticing the breach. In the case of this so-called off-ebay transaction, the interference claim would have a snowball's chance in hell of success, IMHO.