tortious interference with contract claim in North Carolina

2025While a tortious interference with contract claim exists when the interference occurs after the contract is formed, a tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim arises when someone “induces a third party ‘not to enter a contract with’ the [claimant] when the contract would have resulted ‘but for the interference.’” Id. (quoting Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 654 (2001) (internal citations omitted)).

2021While a tortious interference with contract claim exists when the interference occurs after the contract is formed, a tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim arises when someone “induces a third party ‘not to enter a contract with’ the [claimant] when the contract would have resulted ‘but for the interference.’ ” Id. (quoting Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 654 (2001) (internal citations omitted)).

2021The defendant “has knowledge of the contract” for the purposes of a tortious interference with contract claim “if he knows the facts which give rise to the plaintiff’s contractual right against the third person.” Childress v. Abeles, 240 N.C. 667, 674 (1954).

2016Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 85 , 221 S.E.2d 282, 290 (1976); Childress, 240 N.C. at 678 , 84 S.E.2d at 184 (“The fact that the employment is at the will of the parties, respectively, does not make it one at the will of others . . . by the weight of authority the unjustified interference of third persons is actionable although the employment is at will.”) (citations omitted); accord Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C.

2019Our Supreme Court has identified the five elements of a tortious interference with contract claim as follows: “(1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third person which confers upon the plaintiff a contractual right against a third person; (2) the defendant knows of the contract; (3) the defendant intentionally induces the third person not to perform the contract; (4) and in doing so acts without justification; (5) resulting in actual damage to plaintiff.” Kuykendall, 322 N.C. at 661 , 370 S.E.2d at 387 .

2019Our Supreme Court has identified the five elements of a tortious interference with contract claim as follows: “(1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third person which confers upon the plaintiff a contractual right against a third person; (2) the defendant knows of the contract; (3) the defendant intentionally induces the third person not to perform the contract; (4) and in doing so acts without justification; (5) resulting in actual damage to plaintiff.” Kuykendall, 322 N.C. at 661 , 370 S.E.2d at 387 .

2017Co. v. Hooks, 322 N.C. 216, 220 , 367 S.E.2d 647, 650 (1988) (affirming dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

2017Co. v. Hooks, 322 N.C. 216, 220 , 367 S.E.2d 647, 650 (1988) (affirming dismissal of a tortious interference with contract claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

2025See Krawiec, 370 N.C. at 607 .

2021USA, 2018 NCBC LEXIS 42 , at *42–44 (dismissing a tortious interference with contract claim to the extent it was based on unenforceable restrictive covenants) (citing Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway, 194 N.C.

2017See Filmar Racing, Inc., 141 N.C.

2017A defendant need not have actual knowledge of the contract for purposes of a tortious interference with contract claim; “if [the defendant] knows the facts which give rise to the plaintiff’s contractual rights against the third person,” the law will still impute knowledge of the contract “even though he is mistaken as to their legal significance and believes that there is no contract or that the contract means something other than what it is judicially held to mean.” Reichhold Chems., Inc. v. Goel, 146 N.C.

2017App. 137, 151 , 555 S.E.2d 281, 290 (2001).

2017Beverage Sys. of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC, 368 N.C. 693, 700 , 784 S.E.2d 457, 462 (2016) (quoting United Labs, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643, 661 , 370 S.E.2d 375, 387 (1988)).

2017Beverage Sys. of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC, 368 N.C. 693, 700 , 784 S.E.2d 457, 462 (2016) (quoting United Labs, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643, 661 , 370 S.E.2d 375, 387 (1988)).

2017See, e.g., Wagoner v. Elkin City Schs.’ Bd. of Educ., 113 N.C.

2016Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 85 , 221 S.E.2d 282, 290 (1976); Childress, 240 N.C. at 678 , 84 S.E.2d at 184 (“The fact that the employment is at the will of the parties, respectively, does not make it one at the will of others . . . by the weight of authority the unjustified interference of third persons is actionable although the employment is at will.”) (citations omitted); accord Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C.

2016Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 85 , 221 S.E.2d 282, 290 (1976); Childress, 240 N.C. at 678 , 84 S.E.2d at 184 (“The fact that the employment is at the will of the parties, respectively, does not make it one at the will of others . . . by the weight of authority the unjustified interference of third persons is actionable although the employment is at will.”) (citations omitted); accord Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C.

2016Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., 328 N.C. 578, 592 , 403 S.E.2d 483, 492 (1991); Kuykendall, 322 N.C. at 665 , 370 S.E.2d at 389 . 60.

2016Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., 328 N.C. 578, 592 , 403 S.E.2d 483, 492 (1991); Kuykendall, 322 N.C. at 665 , 370 S.E.2d at 389 . 60.

2016Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 85 , 221 S.E.2d 282, 290 (1976); Childress, 240 N.C. at 678 , 84 S.E.2d at 184 (“The fact that the employment is at the will of the parties, respectively, does not make it one at the will of others . . . by the weight of authority the unjustified interference of third persons is actionable although the employment is at will.”) (citations omitted); accord Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C.

2012Group, Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc., 330 N.C. 487, 499 , 411 S.E.2d 916, 924 (1992).

2012Group, Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc., 330 N.C. 487, 499 , 411 S.E.2d 916, 924 (1992).

1995See Childress v. Abeles, 240 N.C. 667, 674 , 84 S.E.2d 176, 181-182 (1954), reh’g denied, 242 N.C. 123 , 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955).

1995See Childress v. Abeles, 240 N.C. 667, 674 , 84 S.E.2d 176, 181-182 (1954), reh'g denied, 242 N.C. 123 , 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955).

1995See Childress v. Abeles, 240 N.C. 667, 674 , 84 S.E.2d 176, 181-182 (1954), reh’g denied, 242 N.C. 123 , 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955).

1995See Childress v. Abeles, 240 N.C. 667, 674 , 84 S.E.2d 176, 181-182 (1954), reh'g denied, 242 N.C. 123 , 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955).