Scholars, this case study combines torts with some contract matters. Review and understand what exactly the plaintiff must prove in Massachusetts to establish a claim for Intentional Interference with Business Relations. The facts drawn from the allegations in the complaint are as follows. Bernard Bedford and Lowell Litigant met in the summer of 2019 at Quincy College in Massachusetts and developed a casual friendship. At that time, Bedford and his wife, Betty, were allegedly under emotional pressure related to a variety of civil legal matters involving their real estate holdings and other business ventures. Bedford shared this information, as well as his resulting marital problems, with Litigant in confidence when they would see each other at the college. Betty later enrolled at Quincy College while Bedford was recovering from emotional distress. On June 16, 2019, a fire broke out at one of Bedford's properties, resulting in the deaths of two children. Shortly thereafter, on July 3, 2019, Betty informed Bedford that she wanted a divorce. Through the help of a private investigator, Bedford learned that Betty had become romantically involved with Litigant. On June 21, 2020, Bedford filed a verified complaint, alleging that Litigant betrayed him in dealing with Betty and Bedford's finances. Specifically, Bedford asserts that Litigant's bad advice and corrupt motivation induced Betty to leave Bedford, take up residence with Litigant in Bedford's home, and abandon her role as property manager for several pieces of property that Bedford owned. Bedford alleges that he was left to deal with lawsuits, debt, and losses associated with the property, and that Litigant has been unjustly enriched. Litigant became aware of the complaint against him and filed a motion to dismiss. In Massachusetts, to establish a claim for intentional interference with business relations, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) he had a business relationship for economic benefit with a third party; (2) the defendant knew of the relationship; (3) the defendant interfered with the relationship through improper means or motive; and (4) the plaintiff's loss of advantage resulted directly from the defendant's conduct.