Court finds that there were material issues of disputed fact. ¶ 12. An action for tortious interference with a contract ordinarily lies when all of the following elements are present: 1) intentional and willful acts; 2) done to cause damages to the plaintiffs in their lawful business; 3) done with the purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant; and 4) actual loss occurs. Collins v. Collins, 625 So.2d 786, 790 (Miss.1993). See also Nichols v. Tri-State Brick & Tile Co., 608 So.2d 324, 327 (Miss. 1992). It must also be proven that the contract would have been performed but for the alleged interference. Par Indus., Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So.2d 44 (¶ 8) (Miss.1998). See Levens v. Campbell, 733 So.2d 753 (¶ 25) (Miss.1999)(<HOLDING>)). ¶ 13. Wertz was employed by In-galls as an
recognizing that wrongful or malicious interference with atwill employment contract may give rise to a tortious interference claim the fact that the employment is at the will of the employer and the employee does not make it one at the will of third parties holding that a director of a corporation may be held hable for tortious interference with the corporations contracts if she exceeds the scope of her corporate authority in causing the breach of those contracts emphasis added holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims