1.4.1 Interference with Existing Contracts

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Claims of interference with existing contract have been brought in diverse circumstances involving all types of contracts. The application of the tort is quite common in construction contracts involving interferences by and between the architects, the general contractors, the subcontractors, the materialmen, and the suppliers.[fn50] While rarely successful, claims of interference with employee's contractual rights with the employer are perhaps the most numerous.[fn51] Less common are claims of interference with employer's contractual rights with his employees.[fn52] The tort of interference with contractual relations has been applied to interferences with commercial lease agreements, subleases, pasture agreements and grazing leases.[fn53] Sellers of real property have alleged interference with their real estate sales contracts where the mortgage holder failed to consent to the sale of mortgaged property, as well as under other circumstances.[fn54] The beneficiaries of restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements have brought tort actions against the person who improperly induced a breach of the restrictive covenant or the noncompete agreement.[fn55] Insurance companies and opposing attorneys who interfered with the attorney-client relationship have been subject to tort actions for interference with the attorney-client relations and agreements.[fn56] Improper interference with a sales agreement for the sale of a business has been alleged where the landlord failed to consent to the assignment of a lease, or where the lien holder failed to consent to the sale of mortgaged property, and in other circumstances.[fn57] The tort action has also been brought for interferences with independent contractor agreements;[fn58] for an interference with a real estate brokerage contract;[fn59] and for an interference with the entitlement to a football scholarship.[fn60]

[fn50] CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS:

Interference:

Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects, 101 Ariz. 53, 415 P.2d 456 (1966) (interference with general contractor's performance of the contract by the architects making the performance more burdensome); Custom Roofing Co. v. Alling, 146 Ariz. 388, 706 P.2d 400 (App. 1985) (roofing supplier's interference with roofing subcontractor's subcontract by canceling the subcontractor's order for supplies needed to perform the subcontract); Nelson v. Cail, 120 Ariz. 64, 583 P.2d 1384 (App. 1978) (architect's interference with plumbing subcontractor's performance of his subcontract by making the performance more burdensome and costly by requiring the plumbing subcontractor to perform additional work not called for by the original plans).

No Interference:

Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes and Son Constr. Co., 112 Ariz. 392, 542 P.2d 817 (1975) (claimed interference by a subcontractor whose bid was orally accepted by the general contractor and later awarded to a competing bidder; summary judgment in favor of subcontractor was affirmed because the oral acceptance of the bid lacked sufficiency of terms to create a contract); Wyatt v. Ruck Constr., Inc., 117 Ariz. 186, 571 P.2d 683 (App. 1977) (claimed interference by the city and city's contract administrator who made statement to the general contractor that the subcontractor was "not qualified to perform work called for within specifications of the contract" and directing the general to terminate the subcontract; summary judgment in favor of the city and city's contract administrator based on the right to protect the city's legitimate interest).

[fn51] EMPLOYEE'S CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYER:

Interference:

Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 710 P.2d 1025 (1985) (interference by supervisor with nurse's at will employment contract which entitled the nurse not to be fired for "bad cause," or cause against public policy); Bernstein v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 843 F.2d 359 (9^th Cir. (1988) (interference by supervisor with district manager's implied in fact contract of employment).

No Interference:

Wallace v. Casa Grande U.H.S.D., 184 Ariz. 419, 909 P.2d 486 (App. 1995) (school district administrator claimed interference with her year-to-year employment contract; summary judgment against the administrator was affirmed where she had no valid expectancy of renewal of her contract, and because the interfering supervisor was privileged to interfere); Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing Int'l, Inc, 183 Ariz. 550, 905 P.2d 559 (App. 1995) (employee claimed interference by the supervisor with her expected promotion; Summary judgment in favor of supervisor was proper where the evidence disclosed that the supervisor was acting within the scope of employment); Miller v. Servicemaster by Rees, 174 Ariz. 518, 851 P.2d 143 (App. 1993) (employee against whom a woman providing janitorial services had...