Precise Engineering Corporation Contract with Quik Mart Stores

Precise Engineering Corporation has a contract with Quik Mart Stores to provide customized software for Quik’s inventory control system. Retail Outlets Inc., Quik’s competitor, induces Sam, a Precise subcontractor who is writing code for the Quik software, to delay delivery of the code for one week. As a result, Precises delivery of the software is delayed, and Quik sustains $500,000 in lost profits. On what ground could Quik recover damages from Retail Outlets?

Our book explains that Tort law recognizes that some acts are wrong because they cause injuries to others and that a tort is not the only type of wrong that exists in law. It goes on to further explain that a tort action is a civil action in which one person brings a personal suit against another to obtain compensation or other relief from harm suffered (Miller R.L. Hollowell W.E 2011). In the case stated above, Quik would be able to file a suit against Retail Outlets Inc. and Precise based on wrongful interference with a contractual relationship. Quik would have to provide three elements necessary to establish this type of suit.

First, Quick would have to provide a valid, enforceable contract between themselves and Retail Outlets Inc. An enforceable contract is a contract that a court will enforce through legal process. Second, a third party must know that this contract exists. In this case the third party is Retail Outlets Inc. who knows about the valid contract between the subcontractor Precise and Quik. Lastly, Quik has to be able to prove that the third party intentionally caused either of the two parties to break the contract. Retail Outlets Inc. induced (by using influence or persuasion) Sam, one of the subcontracts to Precise, into delaying delivery of a product to its customer.

Facts that satisfy all of three elements are set out in the problem. There was a valid, enforceable contract between Precise and Quik. Retail Outlets Inc. knew of this contract, and