3.3.1 Factor (a): The Nature of the Actor's Conduct

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

The nature of the actor's conduct is a chief factor in determining whether the conduct is improper. However, it is only one factor in determining whether the interference is improper.[fn180] Plaintiff has to offer evidence that the defendant acted illegally or inequitably, as for example, by committing fraud, duress or abuse of economic power.[fn181] The issue is not simply whether the actor is justified in causing the harm, but rather whether he is justified in causing it in the manner in which he does cause it.[fn182] If the conduct complained of is in specific violation of a statutory provision, that in itself could render the conduct "improper."[fn183] A violation of established public policy will subject the interferer to liability.[fn184] Conversely, following the mandates of a statute can never be improper.[fn185] In some circumstances, such as where the violation of statute occurs as a result of wrong advice received by the defendant from a governmental agency, the violation of statute as an element of "improper" must give way to good faith, justifiable reliance upon the governmental agency in charge of administering the statute which has been violated.[fn186]

Arizona courts have found unlawful interference where the defendant secured the discharge of an employee who refused to act in an arguably criminal way;[fn187] where the defendant wrongfully claimed the right to control water rights leased by the plaintiff to a third party;[fn188] where a mortgagee claimed in bad faith the right to enforce a due-on-sale clause;[fn189] where a reporting agency published knowingly wrong information about the plaintiff;[fn190] where the architect supervising the job arbitrarily refused permission needed to do certain work;[fn191] where the purchaser of real estate willfully induced the seller not to pay the real estate commission;[fn192] where the landlord unreasonably withheld its consent to assignment of lease in order to charge more rent;[fn193] where an officer of the insurer induced the insurer to terminate the plaintiff's agency agreement so that the officer could obtain the same agreement;[fn194] where the supplier intentionally failed to deliver agreed upon supplies to the subcontractor;[fn195] where the general contractor hired away subcontractor's employees following cancellation of the paving subcontract by the general contractor;[fn196] where one doctor made defamatory statements about another doctor;[fn197] where the supplier of gasoline induced a...