ID · jury_instructions
IDJI 4.70
Tortious interference with contract – issues
With respect to the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
(1) The plaintiff was a party to an existing contract;
(2) The defendant knew of the contract;
(3) The defendant intentionally interfered with the contract, causing a breach;
(4) The plaintiff was damaged as a proximate result of the defendant’s interference; and
(5) The nature and extent of damage, and the amount thereof.
Comment:
See, Barlow v. International Harvester Co., 95 Idaho 881, 522 P.2d 1102 (1974); Magic Valley Truck Brokers, Inc. v. Meyer, 133 Idaho 110, 982 P.2d 945 (Ct. App. 1999).
Affirmative defenses: Many of the affirmative defenses applicable to this issue have not been addressed or approved in the decisions of Idaho appellate courts. For further reference, see Section 767 through 774 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Provenance
- Source
- isc.idaho.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-21
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
986a03fbec54033d404c6ea54647378ea2e428caa4ca5c483c6aae1e464a5862
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.