Question

This is a post first discussion forum. Please respond to the following scenario: 0 Chapter 4 Discussion Forum A Question of Ethics-Wrongful Interference White Plains Coat & Apron Co. and Cintas Corp. are competitors. White Plains had five-year exclusive contracts with some of its customers. As a result of Cintas's soliciting of business, dozens of White Plains's customers breached their contracts and entered into rental agreements with Cintas. White Plains filed a suit against Cintas, alleging wrongful interference. [White Plains Coat & Apron Co. v. Cintas Corp., 8 N.Y.3d 422, 867 N.E.2d 381 (2007)] (See Intentional Torts against Persons.) 1. What are the two policies at odds in wrongful interference cases? When there is an existing contract, which of these interests should be accorded priority? Why? 2. Is a general interest in soliciting business for profit a sufficient defense to a claim of wrongful interference with a contractual relationship? What do you think? Why? Please post and respond to two other students.

Answer 1

1)The two policies at odds in wrongful interfernce will apply if the later party has the knowledge of existing contract of competitor, persuades to breach by providing incentives, causes damages. As per the Court, protection of enforceable contracts, lends stability in dealings and free competition. However there are varying views on this ground; here Cintas defense was that they were unaware regarding the White Plains Coat and Apron Co's 5 year contract with the customers. The protection against the existing contract is when plaintiff (White Plain Coat and Apron Co.) must show valid contract existence ; defendant (Cintas) knowledge regarding the existence of contract and intention of breach of contract. Where Cintas seeking customer and White Plain Coat and Apron Co. is in definite period contract, Cintas would not justify inducing customer to breach.

On the other hand normal promotion, advertisement and soliciting does not cause breach of contract. Court found that it is legitimate interest as a competitor for soliciting business and to make profit. So the defendant do not need and ownership interest in breaching former's business in order to assert economic interest defense.

2) For economic interest to be triggered and to defeat it, White Plain Coats was required to show any malice or illegality happened but they failed to do so. And went further for reconsideration that economic interest did not apply. As it requires complete knowledge regarding the contract and persuation for its breach creating damages for the other party. But here the economic interest not fully established but is in the formative stage. One intentionally and improperly interferes performance of contract ( except contract of matriage) by inducing is subject to liability for the deception loss to the former party. While Cintas raised defence that it acted to protect its own legal or financial stake in breaching party's business. Defense failed however as Cintas justification only constituted a general economic interest in soliciting business for profit and is an insufficient factual basis for defense. And according to my view,  greater protection must be given to existing contract rather giving it to prospective contract. For this White Plain Coat must show valid contract existence and defendant's intention to breach and prove that it was not for the protection of defendant  own legal or financial stake in breaching contract. And as the contract was for definite period of 5 years so Cintas did not have equal rights that of White Plain Coat and Apron Co.