2.4.1 Intent and Motive

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Early Arizona cases required proof that the defendant acted with malice, that is, that he intentionally engaged in wrongful conduct without justification.[fn128] The element of malice has since been substituted with separate elements of intent and improper, and the defense of privilege.[fn129] The intent element has not changed in substance, although it has been clarified to mean that the defendant must have had specific intent to cause the interference.[fn130]

Defendant's intent or motive to interfere, however, need not be the sole motive for liability to attach. Even if a defendant does not desire to interfere, liability will attach upon proof that the defendant knew that the interference was a necessary consequence of his conduct:[fn131]

The tort is intentional in the sense that Western must have intended to interfere with the Snows' contract or have known that this result was substantially certain to be produced by its conduct. Restatement § 8(A) and § 766 comment j; accord 2 F. HARPER, F. JAMES & O. GRAY, supra § 6.8, at 321-22.

However, if a defendant acts for a recognized and legitimate reason, such as a competitive reason, the fact that he may also act with improper motive toward the plaintiff will not subject him to liability.[fn132]

There is no cause of action for negligent interference with contract.[fn133] The rationale for the Arizona view[fn134] is that imposition of liability for negligent interference would place too great a restriction on the freedom of action:[fn135]

The tortfeasor should be held responsible for the natural and probable consequences of his wrong. To protect a contractual interest from negligent interference would place an undue burden on freedom of action and could impose a severe penalty on one guilty of mere negligence.

The Supreme Court of Oregon recently considered a similar case and reduced the problem to that of interference with contractual relationship, an...