Please answer the multiple-choice. Jeff Hubert worked for MedTron, Inc., a medical technology company, as a sales manager. His contract with MedTron had a non-compete clause that prohibited him from working for a competitor for one year after leaving MedTron. St. Francis Medical, S.C., Inc., was a competitor of MedTron. In an effort to expand their business, St. Francis contacted Hubert about joining them. Hubert felt dissatisfied with conditions at MedTron, and so began negotiations with St. Francis. Hubert shared his current contract with St. Franciss executives, who told him that his contract with MedTron was unenforceable and offered him a job as a sales director at a significant higher salary. In fact, the contract was enforceable under state law. Hubert accepted the job offer from St. Francis. MedTron filed a suit against St. Francis, alleging wrongful interference. Did wrongful interference occur and if so, which type of wrongful interference occurred?

Identifying the Facts and Issues Wrongful interference with a business relationship requires select answer that the third party is select answer with a purpose of select answer Wrongful interference with a contractual relationship requires select answer a third party who select answer and that same third party who select answer MedTron most appropriately should sue for wrongful interference with a select answer St. Francis told Hubert that the contract select answer St. Francis select answer to Hubert at a select answer salary. Based on these facts, it select answer that St. Francis intentionally induced Hubert to break his contract with MedTron. Hubert select answer liable for intentional interference with a contract because select answer What If the Facts Were Different? Assume that in the relevant jurisdiction, contracts with clauses restricting working for competitors for more than six months are deemed illegal and unenforceable. Wrongful interference with a contractual relationship requires the existence of select answer third party select answer and select answer . Given these facts, the element of select answer is missing from a wrongful interference with a contractual relationship claim. Given these facts, St. Francis likely select answer liable for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship