Kenneth Vercammen (732) 572-0500

2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817

Ken is a NJ trial attorney who has published 130 articles in national and New Jersey publications on litigation topics. He was awarded the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year. He lectures for the Bar and handles litigation matters. He is Past Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Committee, GP on Personal Injury and lectured at the ABA Annual Meeting attended by 10,000 attorneys and professionals.

New clients email us evenings and weekends go to www.njlaws.com/ContactKenV.htm

Monday, March 28, 2016

Civil Model Jury Charge 3.30A UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH PR IN NJ

Civil Model Jury Charge 3.30A UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH PR IN NJ

Civil Model Jury Charge3.30A UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
The right of a person to pursue a lawful business and to enjoy the fruits and advantages of ones industry or efforts are rights which the law protects against unjustified and wrongful interference by another person.
Thus, the law protects a persons interest in reasonable expectations of economic advantage.
In order that the plaintiff may recover damages for a wrongful act, such wrongful act must be found to have interfered with a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit on the part of the plaintiff.
Thus, plaintiff must prove the following elements:
1.The existence of a reasonable expectation of economic advantage or benefit belonging or accruing to the plaintiff;
2.That the defendant had knowledge of such expectancy of economic advantage;
3.That the defendant wrongfully and without justification interfered with plaintiffs expectancy of economic advantage or benefit;
4.That in the absence of the wrongful act of the defendant it is reasonably probable that the plaintiff would have realized his/her economic advantage or benefit (i.e., effected the sale of the property and received a commission); and
5.That the plaintiff sustained damages as a result thereof.
It is for you to determine, therefore, whether the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements outlined above.If you so find, then you should return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.Otherwise, you should find for the defendant.
Cases:
Harris v. Perl, 41 N.J. 455 (1964); Middlesex Concrete, etc., Corp. v. Carteret Industrial Assn., 37 N.J. 507 (1962); Raymond v. Cregar, 38 N.J. 472 (1962); Rainiers Dairies v. Raritan Val. Farms, 19 N.J. 552 (1955); Myers v. Arcadio, Inc., 73 N.J. Super. 493 (App. Div. 1962); Independent Dairy Workers Union of Hightstown v. Milk Drivers, etc., Local No. 680 30 N.J. 173 (1959); Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 766 (1939).

No comments: