The managing member and president of an LLC could not be liable for tortious interference with contract for firing the Plaintff. "A party to a contract, including the party’s managing agent, cannot be liable for wrongful interference of the contract." The defendant was not an outsider to the contract, and therefore could not be liable

North Carolina does not recognize the "cardinal change doctrine" in government contract cases.

The Court also dismissed a claim for tortious interference with contract against a consultant who had advised the owner not to pay the Plaintiff for its work on a construction project.  The Court found the alleged interference to be justified, even though

There was no tortious interference contract claim against a defendant who sold product to plaintiff’s competitor.  This was a legitimate exercise of the defendant’s rights.

There was no claim for negligence, or negligent misrepresentation, against the defendant because the plaintiff’s claims were for breach of warranty and covered by the UCC, and also because of the

Claims against the lender which had financed an acquisition gone awry were barred by the exculpatory provisions of a subordination agreement.  Georgia law applied, and Georgia law permits one contracting party to waive all recourse in the event of breach by the other.  The exculpatory provision was valid and an absolute defense to plaintiffs’ claims,

The issue was whether a letter formed an enforceable contract. After a thorough discussion of the elements of a valid contract, the Court found that the letter lacked mutual assent as to material elements necessary to create an enforceable contract, including the price to be paid, identification of the parties, and the subject matter of the

Plaintiff sued a departed employee, alleging that she had violated her confidentiality agreement and her non-competition agreement. The Court found defendant’s new employer had not tortiously interfered with her contract. It found the provision on which plaintiff relied, restricting its employees from providing services to any of its clients for 180 days following the termination

The Court granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for interference with prospective economic advantage. The Court found that there was a "high standard" for such a claim, and that plaintiff was required to show, with specificity, the future contracts that plaintiff would have obtained but for the alleged interference.

Plaintiff’s claim for interference with its

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant caused its business to fail. The defendant asserted plaintiff’s business had failed because he used illegal drugs, had extramarital affairs, and because he "had a propensity to sleep and fish during the day."

When the defendant sought to question the owner of the plaintiff about these matters at his

The Court found that the actions of the defendants in pirating away employees and accounts of the plaintiff exceeded the bounds of fair and ethical competition and therefore constitute unfair and deceptive practices.

The Court referred to defendants’ conduct as "surreptitious and intentional," and undertaken while the employees solicited were still employed by the plaintiff.