408.6 Issues on Plaintiffs Claim - Interference With Bus. Rels. or Contract Terminable at Will

408.6 Issues on Plaintiff's Claim - Interference With Business Relations or Contract Terminable at Will The issues for you to decide on (claimant)'s claim against (defendant) are whether (defendant) improperly and intentionally interfered with business relations between (claimant) and (name); and if so, whether such interference was the legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). The first issue you will decide is whether (defendant) interfered with (claimant)'s business relations with (name) by inducing or otherwise causing (name) [not to enter into a contract with (claimant)] [not to continue doing business with (claimant)] [to terminate or bring to an end a contract which (name) was not bound to continue with (claimant)] [(describe other interference)]. If the greater weight of the evidence does not show that (defendant) interfered with (claimant)'s business relations, your verdict should be for (defendant). [However, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (defendant) did (interfere with (claimant)'s business relations with (name)] [cause (name) to cease doing business with (claimant)], you must then decide whether (defendant)'s interference was improper. A person who enjoys business relations with another is entitled to protection from improper interference with that relationship. However, another [person] [business] is entitled to [compete for the business N.1] [or N.2] [advance [his] [her] [its] own financial interest N.2] so long as [he] [she] [it] has a proper reason or motive and [he] [she] [it] uses proper methods. A person who interferes with the business relations of another with the motive and purpose, at least in part, to advance [or protect N.2] [his] [her] [its] own [business] [or] [financial N.2] interests, does not interfere with an improper motive. But one who interferes only out of spite, or to do injury to others, or for other bad motive, has no justification, and the interference is improper. Also, a person who interferes with another's business relations using ordinary business methods [of competition N.1] does not interfere by an improper method. But one who uses [physical violence] [misrepresentations] [illegal conduct] [threats of illegal conduct] [or] [(identify other improper conduct)] has no privilege to use those methods, and interference using such methods is improper. If the greater weight of the evidence does not show that (defendant)'s interference was improper, your verdict should be for the (defendant). N.1 - The bracketed phrases marked N.1 should be given only in cases involving a competition defense and not in cases involving only a financial interest defense. N.2 - The bracketed phrases marked N.2 should be given only when there is a factual issue of whether the defendant interfered to protect his own financial interest in the business of another. [However, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (defendant)'s interference was improper, you must finally decide whether (defendant)'s interference was intentional.] [However, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (defendant) did [interfere with (claimant)'s business relations with (name)] [cause (name) to cease doing business with (claimant)], you must then decide whether (defendant)'s interference was intentional.] Interference is intentional if the person interfering knows of the business relationship with which he is interfering, knows he is interfering with that relationship, and desires to interfere or knows that interference is substantially certain to occur as a result of his action. If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant)'s claim [that (defendant) intentionally interfered with (claimant)'s [contract] [business relationship] with (name),] then your verdict should be for (defendant). [However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant)'s claim, then your verdict should be for (claimant).] [However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant)'s claim, then you shall consider (defendant)'s defense. On the defense, the issue for your determination is whether (defendant) acted properly in interfering as [he] [she] [it] did.] A party is entitled to [compete for the business N.1] [or N.2] [advance [his] [her] [its] own financial interest N.2] so long as [he ] [she] [it] has a proper reason or motive and [he] [she] [it] uses proper methods. A person who interferes with the business relations of another with the motive and purpose, at least in part, to advance [or protect N.2] [his] [her] [its] own [business] [or] [financial N.2] interests, does not interfere with an improper motive. But one who interferes only out of spite, or to do injury to others, or for other bad motive, has no justification, and the interference is improper. Also, a person who interferes with another's business relations using ordinary business methods [of competition N.1] does not interfere by an improper method. But one who uses [physical violence] [misrepresentations] [illegal conduct] [threats of illegal conduct] [or] [(identify other improper conduct)] has no privilege to use those methods, and interference using such methods is improper.] N.1 - The bracketed phrases marked N.1 should be given only in cases involving a competition defense and not in cases involving only a financial interest defense. N.2 - The bracketed phrases marked N.2 should be given only when there is a factual issue of whether the defendant interfered to protect his own financial interest in the business of another. [However, if the greater weight of the evidence [does not support the defense of (defendant) and the greater weight of the evidence] supports (claimant)'s claim, then your verdict should be for (claimant).] If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages. But, if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate (claimant) for the [loss] [or] [damage] that was caused by the intentional interference.