An Article by Joe Jeffery
Download the full Article here.
Illinois recognizes two types of torts to remedy an actor’s interference with a party’s business relationships: tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.[1] Whether interference with an at-will contract is more appropriately remedied under the interference-with-contract tort or the interference-with-prospective-economic-advantage tort is a distinction with a significant difference. Determining which tort applies may be critical to the outcome of a dispute because the two torts provide different levels of protection against a third party’s interference.[2] Contractual relationships enjoy greater protection from interference than relationships based on the mere possibility of future economic advantage.[3]
[1] See Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 568 N.E.2d 870, 877–78 (Ill. 1991); see also Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. ProServ, Inc., 178 F.3d 862, 865 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[I]nducing the termination of a contract, even when the termination is not a breach because the contract is terminable at will, can still be actionable under the tort law of Illinois, either as an interference with prospective economic advantage, or as an interference with the contract at will itself.”) (internal citations omitted).
[2] Belden Corp. v. Internorth, Inc., 413 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980).
[3] Id.