Problem
1) On what theory did the franchisees sue Carvel?
2) What must a plaintiff prove to win on this theory?
3) What does economic advantage mean?
4) How does this tort differ from tortious interference with contract?
5) What are the elements of tortious interference with contract?
6) In the Carvel case, what was the basis for the plaintiffs claim of economic advantage? What did Carvel do to upset the plaintiffs?
7) Did the court agree that this conduct amounted to tortious interference with prospective advantage? Why or why not?