Wis JI-Civil 2780

Question of the Special Verdict asks whether (plaintiff) had a contractual

relationship (prospective contractual relationship) with (3rd party).

[If there is an issue on whether the relationship amounts to a contract, use appropriate

contract instructions.]

Question of the Special Verdict asks whether (defendant) interfered with the

(prospective) contractual relationship (plaintiff) had with (3rd party).

An interference may consist of any conduct or words conveying to (3rd party) the

defendant’s desire to influence (3rd party) to refrain from dealing with the plaintiff. It could

be a simple request or persuasion, exerting only moral pressure, as well as threats or

promises of some benefit to (3rd party). It does not require ill will or expression of malice

towards the plaintiff.

Question of the Special Verdict asks whether that interference on (defendant)’s

part was intentional.

In determining (defendant)’s intent, you may consider (his) (her) actions and

statements. Ordinarily, it is reasonable to infer that a person intends the natural and

probable consequences of (his) (her) acts.

Although other reasons may appear, (plaintiff) must prove that (defendant)’s prime

purpose was to interfere with the contractual relationship (plaintiff) had with (3rd party) or

(defendant) knew or should have known that such interference was substantially certain to

occur as a result of the conduct.

[If knowledge (plaintiff)’s relationship with (3rd party) is an issue, add the following:

It is not necessary that (defendant) had actual knowledge of this specific contract. It is

sufficient that (defendant) had knowledge of facts which, if followed by inquiry ordinarily

made by a reasonable and prudent person, would have led to a disclosure of the contractual

relationship between (plaintiff) and (3rd party). This is sometimes referred to as

“constructive knowledge.”]

Question asks whether a causal connection existed between the interference by

(defendant) and the damages claimed by (plaintiff).

Before you can find that (defendant)’s conduct was a cause of the claimed damages,

you must find that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor; that is, it had a

substantial influence in producing the damages claimed by the plaintiff. In other words,

there must be a real causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s

claimed damages.

Question asks whether (defendant) was justified (or privileged) to interfere with

the contractual relationship (plaintiff) had with (3rd party).

In determining whether (defendant)’s conduct was justified, you should weigh all the

circumstances of the case. Among the factors you should consider are (1) the nature, type,

duration, and timing of the conduct; (2) whether (defendant) had an improper motive; (3)

whether (defendant) was motivated by self-interest as opposed to a public interest; (4) the

type of interest allegedly interfered with; (5) society’s interest in protecting both freedom

of action on (defendant)’s part and contractual relationship of parties; (6) the closeness or

remoteness of (defendant)’s conduct to the alleged interference; (7) whether (plaintiff) and

(defendant) are competitors; and (8) whether (defendant)’s conduct, even though

intentional, was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

A defendant’s conduct may only be found justified if the means employed by the

defendant were lawful. A person’s conduct cannot be justified if the person acted from ill

will or an improper motive towards the plaintiff. Some ill will does not preclude the

possibility of justification so long as the defendant acted in substantial part with a proper

motive in mind.

[For privileges, see Comment.]

The burden of proof as to questions one, two, three, four, and six is on (plaintiff). The

burden of proof as to question five is on (defendant).1

SPECIAL VERDICT

First Question: Did (plaintiff) have a contract with (third party) at the time of

(defendant)’s alleged interference?

Answer:

Yes or No

If you answered “Yes” to Question 1, then answer Question 2. If you answered “No,”

skip to [next cause of action/end].

[Note: In most cases, the first question can be answered by the court as a matter

of law.]

Second Question: Did (defendant) interfere with (plaintiff)’s contract with (third

party)?

Answer:

Yes or No

If you answered “Yes” to Question 2, then answer Question 3. If you answered “No,”

skip to [next cause of action/end].

Third Question: Was the interference on (defendant)’s part intentional?

Answer:

Yes or No

If you answered “Yes” to Question 3, then answer Question 4. If you answered “No,”

skip to [next cause of action/end].

Fourth Question: Was the interference on (defendant)’s part a cause of damages to

(plaintiff)?

Answer:

Yes or No

If you answered “Yes” to Question 4, then answer Question 5. If you answered

“No,” skip to [next cause of action/end].

Fifth Question: Was the interference on (defendant)’s part justified?

Answer:

Yes or No

Answer Question 6 irrespective of how you answered Question 5.

Sixth Question: What amount of damages, if any, will compensate the (plaintiff) for

(defendant’s) interference?

$_______________