In Davidson v. Schneider, 2014 WL 656780 (N.D.Ill. 2014), the Court describes the quantum of proof required for a plaintiff to survive summary judgment on both the damages element of a breach of contract claim and the “reasonable expectancy” prong of a tortious interference claim.
The plaintiff and defendant were competitors in the baseball vision testing business. They were also parties to prior patent infringement litigation that culminated in a written settlement agreement that contained broad non-disparagement language.
When the plaintiff found out that one of defendant’s employee’s was bad-mouthing the plaintiff to a college softball coach and prospective client, he sued in Federal court. After discovery finished, the Court entered summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s breach of contract and tortious interference claims.
An Illinois breach of contract plaintiff must show (a) existence of a contract, (b) performance by the plaintiff, (c) breach by the defendant and (d) compensable damages resulting from the breach. Davidson, *3, Asset Exch. II, LLC v. First Choice Bank, 2011 Ill.App. (1st) 103718.
Damage to reputation or goodwill resulting in a diminished ability to make money as a result of a breach can be recovered in a breach of contract suit. However, where a party shows a breach but no damages, the contract claim is “pointless” and must fail. Davidson, *5.
Here, the plaintiff established a contract (the settlement agreement) and defendant’s breach (by disparaging plaintiff’s products and services). However, the plaintiff was unable to pinpoint any measurable money damages resulting from the defendants’ denigrating the plaintiff’s vision training services.
Plaintiff cited no lost clients or business opportunities traceable to the defendants disparaging comments. Without any damages evidence, the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim failed as a matter of law. Davidson, *4.
The Court also granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim. Plaintiff’s tortious interference count was based on derogatory comments defendants’ employee made to another baseball coach and prospective customer of plaintiff.
The elements of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage are: (1) a reasonable expectation of entering a valid business relationship, (2) defendant’s knowledge of the expectation, (3) purposeful interference by the defendant that prevents plaintiff’s expectation from ripening into a business relationship, and (4) damages to the plaintiff resulting from the interference. *5
The mere hope for or possibility of a future business relationship is insufficient to show a reasonable expectancy.
Here, plaintiff’s evidence showed only a nebulous hope of a future business pairing with the baseball coach to whom defendants trashed plaintiff’s product. He didn’t show any specific business arrangement that was in the works. As a result, plaintiff failed to raise a triable fact question on whether he had a reasonable expectation of a future business relationship with the baseball coach.
Take-aways: A breach of contract plaintiff’s failure to prove damages with tangible evidence of financial loss at the summary judgment state will doom his case.
To survive summary judgment on a tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim, the plaintiff must offer tangible evidence that he had a specific, proposed business arrangement with an identified third party – instead of a wish or hope for one – to meet the tort’s reasonable expectancy test.