History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner


 

 

 

 

 

   

3.15-3  Tortious Interference - Business Expectancy

Revised to January 1, 2008

The first element that the plaintiff must prove is that (he/she/it) had a business expectancy to <identify business expectancy>.   To prove this, the plaintiff must show that (he/she/it) had a reasonable prospect of entering into a contractual or a business relationship.

Authority

Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20, 29 n.8 (2000); Sportsmen's Boating Corp. v. Hensley, 192 Conn. 747, 753-54 (1984); Busker v. United Illuminating Co., 156 Conn. 456, 461 (1968); Selby v. Pelletier, 1 Conn. App. 320, 323-24 (1984).  See Norden Systems, Inc. v. General Dynamics Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford, Docket No. CV 89 0101260 (November 8, 1990) (2 Conn. L. Rptr. 766)  (holding that specific identification of a third party to the prospective business relation is required).  See also 4 Restatement (Second) Torts § 766B, comment c (1979) (all potentially profitable prospective contractual relations, except those leading to contracts to marry, are protected).

Notes

Use this instruction only if the claim is for interference with a business expectancy, rather than an existing contract.
 


 

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQ's | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2011, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch