Ii. [§ 3.133] Tortious Interference with Prospective Advantage

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

II. [§ 3.133] TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE

John Smith Corporation is engaged in the business of selling automobiles. George Harris is a competitor. Harris contacted 15 known customers of John Smith Corporation and persuaded them to buy automobiles from him and not from John Smith Corporation. In the course of persuading these customers to stop dealing with John Smith Corporation, Harris told the customers that John Smith Corporation was violating criminal laws in the manner in which it was providing financing for the automobiles. John Smith Corporation sued George Harris for tortious interference with prospective advantage.

COMPLAINT

Tortious Interference with Prospective Advantage

John Smith Corporation (hereinafter "Smith Corporation"), Plaintiff, by its attorneys, Sara P. Endo and Endo & Endo, P.A., sues George Harris (hereinafter "Harris"), Defendant, and states:
1. Plaintiff Smith Corporation is incorporated in the state of Maryland and engages in the business of selling automobiles.
2. Defendant Harris is a resident of Baltimore City and is engaged as a competitor of Plaintiff in the business of selling automobiles in Baltimore City, Maryland.
3. On or about April 8, 2022, Harris began contacting known customers of Smith Corporation with the intention of causing said customers to cease dealing with Smith Corporation and to commence dealing with Harris.
4. Harris, during the spring of 2022, told said customers that Smith Corporation was violating the criminal laws by the manner in which it was providing financing for the customers to acquire automobiles.
5. The conduct of Harris in communicating with the customers of Smith Corporation was intentional, willful, and calculated to cause damage to Smith Corporation's lawful business. The conduct of Harris was perpetrated with the intentional and improper purpose of causing damage and was without justifiable cause.
6. As a result of the conduct of Harris, the customers that Harris contacted ceased doing business with Smith Corporation and commenced purchasing automobiles from Harris.
7. As a result of Harris's conduct and actions, Smith Corporation has suffered and will continue to suffer lost profits, other consequential damages, and harm to reputation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Smith Corporation, demands judgment against Defendant Harris in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) in compensatory and punitive damages, with interest and costs.

__________
Sara P. Endo
AIS No. 0123456789
Endo & Endo, P.A.
Exelon Building
1310 Point Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21231
Phone: (410) 555-1234
Fax: (410) 555-1235
Email: SEndo@SEndoLaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMMENT

[T]he elements of the tort [of interference with prospective advantage] are:
"(1) intentional and wilful acts;
(2) calculated to cause damage to the

...