The article is about movie star Clint Eastwood who damaged the career of Sandra Locke, his former girlfriend. Eastwood did so by securing her a movie development deal with Warner Bros which led to Locke calling off the palimony suit she had filed. Clint Eastwood then further used his influence to block Sandra Locke from directing any films. This led to Sandra Locke not working in any film as a director since signing the deal. This caused a serious harm to her career.
The case highlighted in this article is a classic example of how a party to a contract (first party) may intentionally interfere with contractual relationships to prevent the other party (second party) from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. From our class lessons, we learnt that the intentional interference of contractual relationships occur when the intentional conduct of the 1st party causes the 2nd party not to enter a business contract with the 3rd party that otherwise would have probably occurred. Firms or persons intentionally interfere with contracts to negatively affect business relationships and prospective business relationships, and to gain unfair advantage. Contract interference by a person or business entity is usually done to damage the other parties’ business relationship. Many businesses convince the third party to breach against a contract so as to damage businesses of other rival companies or to gain unfair advantage. It is evidently clear that Eastwood used his position to prevent her girlfriend’s deal with Warner Bros from materializing. This was so as Sandra Locke’s 30 proposed films to Warner Bros. were all rejected during the 1990-1993 period. It was later found out that Clint Eastwood was to repay any expenses Warner Bros was to incur from the deal, as part of a secret reimbursement deal. This contract interference by Eastwood damaged her career as a film director.
Intentional contractual interference is a common practice in the field of business as businesses use it to push their hidden agendas. Clint Eastwood’s is just one of the many cases of fraud and intentional contract interference. It so happens that these businesses convince other parties to enter into a contract and thereafter convince the third party to breach the contract so as to drive the business of the other parties to the contract away. I am in total agreement with the article that Sandra Locke’s career was ruined as a result of Eastwood’s interference with the agreed contract. It was right for Locke to sue Eastwood as clearly her career was damaged.
