Also known as: remoteness of consequences · remoteness · remoteness of damage
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An equitable factor used to decide whether an actor's conduct is too distant from a third party's breach of contract to support liability for intentional interference. Courts weigh how many independent decisions or events separate the actor's persuasion from the actual breach.
Redline Automotive contacted a supplier and urged it to breach an existing contract with Royal Crest Hotels. The supplier's decision to breach occurred only after several unrelated market shifts and internal policy changes at the supplier. A court finds the interference too remote because the actor's conduct was separated from the actual breach by multiple independent decisions.
A competitor urged a parts supplier to stop selling to a rival manufacturer. Two months later the supplier breached after its own board independently voted to exit that product line. The court held the competitor's conduct too remote from the breach because intervening corporate decisions broke the chain.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A wholesaler persuaded a distributor to drop a retailer's account. The distributor later terminated the account only after revising its entire regional strategy. The court found the wholesaler's persuasion too remote because the termination resulted from the distributor's own later policy overhaul.
A consultant advised a client to cancel a long-term service contract. The client canceled only after its legal department reviewed the advice and its CFO separately approved the move. The court ruled the consultant's advice too remote from the cancellation because two independent internal approvals intervened.
A union pressured an employer to terminate a subcontractor. The employer ended the subcontract only after its own labor-relations committee conducted an independent review. The court held the union's pressure too remote because the committee's separate decision was the immediate cause of termination.
An investor suggested that a firm stop dealing with a particular vendor. The firm ceased dealing only after its procurement team performed its own cost analysis weeks later. The court found the suggestion too remote because the procurement team's independent analysis was the proximate cause of the decision.
Remoteness measures how many independent decisions or events lie between the defendant's persuasion and the third party's actual breach. Greater distance reduces the likelihood that the defendant's conduct will support liability for intentional interference.
Supporting sources
No. Even direct contact may still be too remote if the breach occurs only after the third party makes its own subsequent, independent decisions that are not themselves induced by the defendant.
Supporting sources
Remoteness is weighed together with the nature of the conduct, the actor's motive, and the interests of the parties. A highly remote act is less likely to be found improper even if other factors lean against the defendant.
Supporting sources
…it touches subjects on which the States have historically been the primary legislators. Neither suggestion is tenable. As for remoteness, it may or may not be wise for the National Government to deal with education, but Justice Breyer has surely demonstrated that the commercial prospects of an illiterate State or Nation are…