>>177676

>Is "intentional interference with prospective economic advantage" not valid if a person entered a contract?

'''In Washington state, having a contract does not make an interference claim invalid; rather, it typically shifts the claim from "interference with a prospective advantage" to the more specific
tortious interference with a contract. Both are types of tortious interference, and they often share the same legal framework in Washington.'''

Key Differences When a Contract Exists
Different Jury Instructions: If a valid contract exists, Washington courts use a specific set of instructions (WPI 352.01). The "prospective" version (WPI 352.02) is reserved for relationships that haven't reached a formal contract or for at-will contracts.
Lower Bar for Wrongfulness: Proving interference with a prospective advantage is generally harder because courts want to protect fair competition. Once a contract is signed, the law offers stronger protection; the interferer's actions often don't need to be as "independently wrongful" as they would for a mere prospective relationship.
The "At-Will" Exception: If your contract is "at-will" (meaning either party can leave at any time for any reason), Washington courts may treat an interference claim as if it were a prospective advantage claim rather than a contract claim.

Why You Might See Both
It is common for a lawsuit to allege both claims "in the alternative". If the court or a jury finds that the contract was technically invalid or not yet fully formed, the plaintiff can still potentially win under the "prospective economic advantage" theory.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X1DKC55O000000/litigation-overview-tortious-interference-with-a-prospective-eco
https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/t/tort-of-intentional-interference-with-prospective-economic-advantage