Torts of Economic Relations are allegations of direct interference with business relationships, agreements or prospects, which result in quantifiable losses. When suing for Torts of Economic Relations, it is important that the plaintiff be able to prove that the defendant acted intentionally with knowledge of his or her own actions, and that the subsequent actions were injurious to the claimant in the form of economic losses. Torts of Economic Relations normally fall under classifications of Interference with Contractual Relations, Interference with Prospective Advantage or claims of Injurious Falsehood.
Injurious Falsehood is a tort regarding the intentional utterance or publication of a lie for the purpose of causing harm to another. Injurious Falsehood is a similar claim to defamation, which regards to statements which seek to tarnish or damage one’s reputation. The main difference between defamation and Injurious Falsehood is that statements of Injurious Falsehood must be conjured, false, or stated without regard to their credibility. The burden of proof in this tort involves proving that the defendant knew his or her assertions were untrue, and that he or she acted only to damage the plaintiff with said assertions.
Interference with Contractual Relations:
Interference with contractual relations is a violation of tort law which occurs when a third party intentionally attempts to alter a contract between two other parties. This interference can take place when the third party encourages one of the two contracted parties into breach of contract, or disrupts either party from being able to fulfill their respective side of the contract in question. It is clearly stipulated that interference is only a violation of tort law when the interfering third party has no audit or supervisory privilege to the contract itself, and thus has no immunity from the charge.
Interference with Prospective Advantage:
Interference with Prospective Advantage is a form of tortious interference by a third party in an economic relationship with the prospect of future economic gains for the plaintiff. The defendant in this allegation, must have acted on his or her own awareness and intent to disrupt the economic relationship at stake. Furthermore, the relationship itself must have been observably disrupted, and quantifiable damages must have befallen the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s actions of Interference with Prospective Advantage.