Interference with Contract and Other Economic Expectancies: A Clash of Tort and Contract Doctrine

Abstract

A has a contract with B. TP interferes with its performance, to A's economic detriment.A might recover from B for breach of contract, but prior to 1853, in most circumstances, he could not recover against TP.In that year, Lumley v. Gye 1 established a general principle of tort liability for intentionally interfering with a contract.Since Lumley, the interference tort has been applied evenwhere the interference is directed at an unenforceable contract or a relationship involving only an expectancy not yet formalized into a contract. 2Today, courts impose liability under the rubric of the interference tort in a variety of contexts, but they have failed to develop common or consistent doctrines.The absence of a coherent doctrine is understandable.The idea that a person should not interfere with another's economic relationships is easier to expound in the abstract than to apply in the particular.The expectations of the parties and, therefore, the acceptability of an interference differ radically depending on the context, terms, and subject matter of the relationship-whether it t Professor,