This Comment examines the nature of the relationship required to establish a cause of action for interference with prospective economic gain. The author suggests that different jurisdictions have reached differing conclusions with respect to the importance of the existence of an enforceable contract as a basis for the establishment of liability. The author discusses the history behind this cause of action and looks at various explanations for the differing viewpoints, with specific focus on the positions taken by California and New York. The author concludes that the California approach, where liability is not dependent on the existence of a contract, is better suited to the modern commercial setting.
James V. Telfer,
Interference with Prospective Gain: Must There Be a Contract,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol22/iss1/13