In Nevada, the elements for a claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (sometimes called intentional interference with prospective economic interest or prospective contractual relationship) are:
- A prospective contractual relationship between plaintiff and a third party;
- Defendant has knowledge of the prospective relationship;
- The intent to harm plaintiff by preventing the relationship;
- The absence of privilege or justification by the defendants;
- Actual harm to plaintiff as a result of defendant’s conduct; and
- Causation and damages.
Custom Tel., Inc. v. Int’l Tele-Services, Inc., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1180-81 (Nev. 2003); Wichinsky v. Mosa, 109 Nev. 84, 88, 847 P.2d 727 (1993); Leavitt v. Leisure Sports, Inc., 103 Nev. 81, 88, 734 P.2d 1221, 1225 (1987). Intention to interfere is the sine qua non of this tort. M&R Inv. Co. v. Goldsberry, 101 Nev. 620, 707 P.2d 1143, 1144 (1985); Local Joint Exec. Bd. Of Las Vegas v. Stern, 98 Nev. 409, 651 P.2d 637, 638 (1982).
See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library
