Tortious interference with contract—also known as intentional interference with contractual relations or business expectancy—is a civil claim or cause of action based on interference with a contract or a prospective contract that is about to be completed—by a person or entity who is not a party to the contract (third party).

A claim for tortious interference is based on the idea that the third party encouraged or induced one of the parties to the contract to breach the contract, causing damages to the nonbreaching party, who may sue the third party to recover those damages or losses. In some states there is a requirement that the interference be done maliciously or without justification.

Laws regarding claims for tortious interference with contract vary from state to state. Some states have broadened the protections against interference beyond situations where there is an existing contract and recognize claims for interference with prospective economic advantage or business relations.

But whether there is an existing contract or not, some instances of interference will not create legal liability and will be recognized as legitimate competitive activity, for example.

In Tennessee, tortious interference with contract, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, is recognized as a legal cause of action. To establish a claim for tortious interference in Tennessee, a plaintiff must prove that a legal contract existed, the defendant was aware of this contract, the defendant intended to induce a breach of the contract, the defendant acted with improper motive or means, and as a result, the plaintiff suffered damages. Tennessee law also recognizes a claim for interference with business relationships even in the absence of a formal contract, known as interference with prospective economic advantage. However, not all interferences are actionable. Actions that constitute normal competitive behavior in the marketplace may not be considered tortious. The distinction between unlawful interference and permissible competition can be nuanced, and the specific facts of each case are critical in determining whether a legal claim can be sustained. An attorney can provide guidance on the likelihood of success of such a claim based on the circumstances of the interference.