17. If the airline sues the delivery service for tortious interference with contract, will the airline prevail?

To establish a prima facie case of tortious interference with a contract, the plaintiff must prove (i) the existence of a valid contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party or a valid business expectancy by the plaintiff; (ii) that the defendant knew of the relationship or expectancy; (iii) that the defendant intentionally interfered and thereby induced a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (iv) that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result.

A is correct. The airline would not prevail on its tortious interference claim against the delivery service. Under the facts as presented, the airline would have a strong basis for a tortious interference claim against the food company. After becoming aware of the airline's contract with the delivery service, the food company acted deliberately to induce a breach in this contract, causing financial loss to the airline as a result. However, instead of bringing a tortious interference claim against the food company, the airline brought this tort claim against the delivery service. Because a tortious interference claim involves interference in a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party, it cannot be brought by a plaintiff against a defendant with whom the plaintiff has contracted. Here, there was a contractual relationship between the airline and the delivery service, and therefore, the airline would need to pursue contractual remedies and could not prevail on a tortious interference claim.

B is incorrect. Although the airline was not in privity with the food company, this would not be the basis for it not prevailing on a tortious interference claim against the delivery service. Because there was no privity of contract between the airline and food company, had the airline brought a tortious interference claim against the food company, it would likely prevail because the food company was aware of the airline's contract with the delivery service, and acted deliberately to sabotage that contract. However, precisely because there was privity of contract between the airline and the delivery service, the airline's tortious interference claim against the delivery service would fail. The airline could only recover against the delivery service based on contractual remedies.

C is incorrect. The airline would not prevail on a tortious interference claim against the delivery service, because a tortious interference claim requires intentional interference by the defendant into a contractual relationship or business expectancy between the plaintiff and a third party. The plaintiff cannot recover on a tortious interference claim, and must instead pursue contractual remedies. Further, the fact that the delivery service did not terminate the contract because of poor performance would also be a weak basis for a contractual claim by the airline against the delivery service, because the contract was at-will, allowing either party to terminate the contract at any time, without cause, without violating the contract.

D is incorrect. The airline would not prevail on a tortious interference claim against the delivery service on the basis that the delivery service's termination made it party to the food company's acts. A tortious interference claim requires intentional interference by the defendant into a contractual relationship or business expectancy between the plaintiff and a third party. The plaintiff cannot recover on a tortious interference claim and must instead pursue contractual remedies.

Under the facts as presented, the airline would have a strong basis for a tortious interference claim against the food company, because the two were not in a contractual relationship, and the food company acted intentionally to sabotage the contract between the airline and the delivery service. However, the food company's bad acts would not allow tortious interference to be imparted to the delivery service, because the delivery service was in a contract with the airline.

Additionally, there is no indication that the delivery service encouraged or in some way abetted the food company's cancellation of its contract. On the contrary, the food company's actions economically harmed the delivery service, and the delivery service had no motive or incentive to end its contract with the airline. Instead, the food company's actions forced the delivery service to end its airline contract.