Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 408.6

The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim against (defendant) are whether (defendant) intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with business relations between (claimant) and (person or entity); and if so, whether such interference was the legal cause of [loss] [or] [damage] to (claimant).

To be liable for interfering with the [contractual relationship] [business relationship] [prospective business relationship] between (claimant) and (person or entity), (defendant) must have acted intentionally to interfere with the [contractual relationship] [business relationship] [prospective business relationship]. A person interferes with a [contractual relationship] [business relationship] [prospective business relationship] between two [or more] other persons if [he] [she] [it] induces or otherwise causes one of them to [breach the contract] [terminate the relationship] [not form the relationship]. Therefore, (defendant) must have known of the existence of the [contractual relationship] [business relationship] [prospective business relationship], and [he] [she] [it] must have either intended to cause the breach of the relationship or acted knowing that [his] [her] [its] actions were likely to cause that result.

(Claimant) does not have to prove that [he] [she] [it] had an enforceable contract with (person or entity), if [he] [she] [it] can prove that (person or entity) would have [complied with] [entered into] the [contractual relationship] [business relationship] [prospective business relationship] if (defendant) had not improperly interfered.

(Defendant) must have also acted unjustifiably. (Claimant) must prove that (defendant) acted unjustifiably because defendant [violated a statute] [committed a tort] [or] [committed other improper acts].

A person who interferes with another’s business relations using ordinary business methods of competition does not interfere improperly. But one who uses [physical violence] [misrepresentations] [illegal conduct] [threats of illegal conduct] [or] [(identify other improper conduct)] has no privilege to use those methods, and interference using such methods is improper.

If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim, then your verdict should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim, [then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)] [then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant)].