1.2.1 Interference with Existing Contracts

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

The economic need for a tort that provides essentially the same remedy as a breach of contract appears superfluous. The tort damages for interference with contractual relations are based on contract damages.[fn32] Proof of the breach of the contract is in many cases necessary in order to recover.[fn33] The practical difference between a tort action and a contract action is that in the tort action the prevailing party will not be entitled to an award of attorney's fees,[fn34] but may be entitled to an award of punitive damages.[fn35] In some circumstances this may prove to be an important practical difference considering that the plaintiff can proceed against the breacher, the interferer, or both.[fn36]

There are, however, situations in which a contract action is not available to the plaintiff. These situations will arise in the context of interferences with contracts terminable at will,[fn37] contingent contracts,[fn38] or voidable contracts.[fn39] Cases in this category also involve interferences which make the plaintiff's performance under the contract more burdensome, costly, or impossible, but do not necessarily result in a breach of contract.[fn40] In such circumstances an action on contract is not viable because there has been no breach. For example, the architect may interfere with the performance of a construction contract by making the performance of the general contractor's contract with the owner more burdensome. Under such scenario, the general contractor does not have a cause of action against the owner since the owner has not breached the contract; however, he does have a cause of action for interference against the architect who has made the performance...