Interference with the contractual relations of another is said to be an actionable wrong unless there is adequate justification therefor.1 While such a statement of the law may be correct, it is so vague as to be of little help, since it does not indicate what sufficient justification is. Interference with an existing contract is not justifiable because of the fact that the party who interferes wrongfully with the contract of another does so in order to advance his own interests, and not primarily for the purpose of injuring the adversary party.2 The fact that X interferes in a contract between A and B, because X is a competitor of A's, and wishes to secure X's employe, B, who has professional knowledge and skill in the business;3 or the fact that X needs laborers and secures them by getting laborers such as B, to break their contracts with A;4 or the fact that A compels B to break a contract to furnish A with certain goods in order that X may furnish such goods himself,5 does not prevent X from being liable to A.

17 Wheeler- Stenzel' Co. v. American Window Glass Co., 202 Maes. 471, L. R. A. 1915F, 1076, 89 N. E. 28.

1 South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co. [1905], A. C. 239; Read v. Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons- [1902], 2 K. B. 732.

2 Read v. Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons [1902], 2 K. B. 732; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co., 107 Md. 556, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 746, 69 Atl. 405; Beekman v. Marsters, 195 Mass. 205, 122 Am. St. Rep. 232, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 80 N. E. 817; Oxner v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., - S. Car. - , 96 S. E. 559.

3Beekman v. Marsters, 196 Mass. 205, 122 Am. St. Rep. 232, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 80 N. E. 817.

4 Oxner v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., - S. Car. - , 96 S. E. 559.