## Facts

- Plaintiffs operated a shoe-manufacturing business that required employing many shoemakers.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendant knowingly and without justifiable cause sought to hinder their business by inducing shoemakers to stop working for them.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendant induced shoemakers already working for plaintiffs, and others about to enter plaintiffs’ employment, to abandon or refuse the employment, causing lost services, lost profits, and increased hiring costs.
- Plaintiffs alleged they had contracts with shoemakers to convert delivered stock into finished shoes and return them; defendant allegedly induced the shoemakers to return the stock unfinished and refuse performance, causing damage to stock and increased finishing costs.
- Plaintiffs alleged a shoemaker agreed for consideration to make three cases of shoes within one month; defendant allegedly enticed the shoemaker to leave before performance and refuse to perform, depriving plaintiffs of the contract’s benefits.
- Defendant demurred to each count, asserting the pleadings did not state an actionable tort.

## Issues

1. Whether a third party is liable in tort for intentionally and without justification interfering with a business by inducing employees and prospective employees to leave or refuse employment, even if the workers were not bound by fixed-term contracts.
2. Whether a third party is liable in tort for knowingly and intentionally inducing others to refuse to perform or to breach specific contracts with the plaintiff.
3. Whether alleged losses of services, profits, and increased expenses constitute legal damage rather than nonactionable economic loss.

## Decision

- The court overruled the demurrer to all three counts.
- The court held that each count adequately alleged intentional, unjustified interference and resulting legal damage.
- The case was allowed to proceed on the pleaded tort theories.

## Legal Principles

- A person has a right to the fruits and advantages of lawful enterprise and to be free from malicious and wanton interference; the law does not protect against ordinary competition.
- Economic loss from competition is not actionable unless a contract or other superior right is interfered with; by contrast, loss caused by wanton or malicious acts without lawful justification may be actionable.
- Knowingly and intentionally procuring nonperformance or breach of another’s contract, without justification, supports tort liability.
- Interference with advantageous relations may be actionable even where the induced workers could otherwise leave at will, if the interference is intentional and without justifiable cause.
- Legal damage includes loss of expected advantages or benefits that would have been obtained absent the interference, including lost profits and increased costs.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff may sue in tort when a defendant intentionally and without justification disrupts business operations by inducing workers to quit or refuse employment and by procuring nonperformance or breach of contracts, because such malicious interference and resulting economic loss constitute an actionable legal injury.


Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555 (1871)