Under Connecticut law it is tortious either to induce a third party to breach of contract or to interfere with financial expectancies. Paint Products Co.  V. Minwax Co., Inc., 448 F. Supp. 656 (l978).

One who unjustifiably causes another to breach a contract with a third party may be liable under the law of Connecticut to that party.  Bowman v. Grolsche Bierbrouwerij, B.V., 474 F. Supp. 656 (l978).

 A plaintiff  may recover damages for totious interference with a contract not only where the contract is thereby not performed but also where interference causes performance to be more expensive or burdensome. Herman v. Endriss, 187 Conn. 374,  447 A2d. 9 (l982)

Tortious interference with contract requires existence of a contractual or beneficial relationship, defendant's knowledge of that relationship, intent to interfere with that relationship and consequent actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. Hart, Nininger and Campbell Associates, Inc. v. Rogers, 16 Conn App. 619, 548 A2d. 758 (1988).

There is a difference between engaging in proper procedures to collect a fee and finding one's self running afoul of the above case law by transgressing those standards. It is very easy to over react out of frustration for non payment.

to post a reply: login - or - register