In 1980, the New York Court of Appeals adopted §766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the standard for a cause of action for tortious interference with contract in New York. Guard-Life v. S. Parker Hardware Mfg., 50 N.Y.2d 183, 189-90 (1980); see Alken Indus. v. Toxey Leonard & Assocs., 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 31864(U), at *5 (Suffolk Co. Aug. 2, 2013). The Restatement defines tortious interference with contract as “intentionally and improperly interfer[ing] with the performance of a contract… between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract.” Restatement (Second) of Torts §766 (Am. L. Inst. 1977). The requirement in this definition of “inducing or otherwise causing” the third person not to perform its contract has been extensively litigated in New York courts, which have required a somewhat heightened pleading standard for that element.
Read the full New York Law Journal article, "Pleading the element of inducement for tortious interference with contract claims."
Publication
Since our last update, the growth in climate change litigation globally has continued. While cases against the fossil fuel sector continue to be brought, there are also claims against defendants in a wider variety of high-emitting and resource-intensive sectors.
Publication
The government of Indonesia has finally announced the issue of the long-awaited Personal Data Protection Law.
Publication
In a significant judgment affirming the importance of the protection of personal data in Singapore, the Singapore Court of Appeal (SGCA or Court) has clarified the ambit of the right of private action in section 32(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA).
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2022