Chapter 9-3 Conspiracy to Breach Contract

• Jurisdiction: United States

9-3 Conspiracy to Breach Contract

9-3:1 Overview

A civil conspiracy consists of "a combination by two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means."¹³ A plaintiff who pleads and proves a civil conspiracy may hold the defendants jointly and severally liable¹⁴ and recover actual as well as exemplary damages.¹⁵ Texas recognizes a distinction between tortious interference with existing contract and conspiracy to breach contract. Tortious interference with an existing contract is a valid cause of action which seeks to hold the third-party tortfeasor(s) liable,¹⁶ whereas conspiracy to breach a contract of which the plaintiff is a party is not a viable cause of action in Texas.¹⁷

9-3:1.1 Related Causes of Action

Breach of Contract, Contract, Combination or Conspiracy, Tortious Interference with Existing Contract

MUST READ CASE

San Saba Energy, L.P. v. McCord, 167 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. denied)

9-3:2 Expressly Rejected in Texas

While the Supreme Court of Texas has not expressly rejected this cause of action, it has done so impliedly.¹⁸ Moreover, several courts of appeal have expressly rejected a cause of action for conspiracy to breach a contract to which the plaintiff is a party.¹⁹

--------

Notes:

^[13] Firestone Steel Products Co. v. Barajas, 927 S.W.2d 608, 617 (Tex. 1996); Triplex Commc'ns, Inc. v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Tex. 1995).

^[14] 12 Tex. Jur. 3d Civil Conspiracy § 3.

^[15] 12 Tex. Jur. 3d Civil Conspiracy § 19.

^[16] Holloway v. Skinner, 898 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1995); Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Financial Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 79 (Tex. 2000). Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. v. Tex. Oil Co., 958 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. 1997).

^[17] San Saba Energy, L.P. v. McCord, 167 S.W.3d 67, 73 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. denied).