Which of the following is a valid defense to intentional interference with a business relationship?

• A. Advisory role of the defendant
• B. Lack of knowledge of the relationship
• C. Absence of damages
• D. The contract is illegal

Answer: (A)

Interfering with a business relationship is tortious only if the defendant intentionally induces or causes a breach or disruption in a way that is not privileged. A valid defense is that the defendant acted in an advisory role. When someone is simply giving honest business advice or information to a party, within the scope of legitimate business conduct and without an improper motive to cause a breach, the action is privileged. This remains true as long as the advice doesn’t amount to unlawful pressure or a deliberate attempt to disrupt the relationship; in that context, the interference isn’t wrongful, so liability doesn’t attach.

Lack of knowledge about the relationship could undermine the intent element in some cases, but the advisory-privilege defense is stronger because it focuses on the proper role and motive of the actor. Absence of damages may prevent recovery but doesn’t negate the underlying tort if there’s no remedy left to grant, and the contract’s illegality does not by itself shield someone from liability for interference.