by the Government of New Jersey

“ As we have observed, the record is devoid of any cogent discussion of the issue, and the trial court's terse explication for dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, adopted by the Appel-late Division, gives no indication that the stated principles were a matter of any concern. No party presents an argument that would permit us to reach an informed decision. Ultimate resolution of the question of whether an employee of a party to a prospective economic relationship can be held liable for tortious interference may require the Court to create a special cause of action against the employee. ”

“ Whether the tortious interference of an employee can be imputed under respondeat superior to either party to a prospective contract or a third-party competitor presents a question separate, of course, from whether the complaint states an independent claim against the employees of Sharp and Laurriet for intentional interference with a prospective economic relation. ”

“ The statement that Laurriet could beat Printing Mart's prices by $ 1000 to $ 1200 per quote contains nothing to belittle the reputation of Printing Mart; it is no more than the mere boasting of a competitor. The statement that plaintiffs were a "mere convenience" to Sharp tends more to impute lazi-ness and sloth to Sharp officials than it does to tarnish plaintiffs' business reputation. ”

“ However, the rule of tortious interference was not meant to upset the rules governing the contractual relationship itself. Where a person interferes with the performance of his or her own contract, the liability is governed by principles of contract law. ”

“ A complaint based on tortious interference must allege facts that show some protectable right -- a prospective eco-nomic or contractual relationship. Although the right need not equate with that found in an enforceable contract, there must be allegations of fact giving rise to some "reasonable expectation of economic advantage." ”

“ The prayer for relief on the first, Count One, states that plaintiffs "seek Judgment of this Count against the defendants Rosenthal, Sinoway, Edelman, Essenfeld, Pippert and Gemini." Absent from the claim on that count are defendants Sharp and Laurriet. The only claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations against Sharp, which would have been a party to the prospective contract, is found in the fourth count, in which the tortious actions of the Sharp-employees defendants Sinoway, Edelman, and Essenfeld are imputed to Sharp under the doctrine of respondeat superior. ”

“ An employee is acting within the scope of employment if the action is "of the kind that [that the servant] is employed to perform; it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; [and] it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master." Di Cosala v. Kay, supra, 91 N.J. at 169 (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228 (1958) ) . Rosenthal's efforts, as alleged, to win the "ECR"-manual contract for Laurriet clearly appears to be within the scope of his employment sufficiently to survive a motion to dismiss at this preliminary stage. ”

“ Clementsen, 20 N.J. Super. 367, 372 (App.Div.1952)
[a] broker does not earn his commission by the mere introduction of a buyer to the owner, but he must be the efficient procuring cause of the contract between seller and purchaser. But where the broker presents a prospective buyer and, on that basis negotiations ensue, even though the broker takes no part in them, and a sale results, then ordinarily the broker is considered to be the efficient cause. ”

“ The employee remains liable individually, even though the tortious act conferred no personal benefit on or produced no advantage for the employee and the wrongful act was undertaken only to benefit the employer. ”

“ Some cases applying New Jersey law indicate that the foregoing principle can operate to hold an employee liable for intentional interference with a pros-pective contractual relationship even though the employer would be a party to the relationship and the employee was acting on behalf of the employer. ”

“ Also, the statement that Printing Mart has never been the lowest bidder on any job is not, standing alone and without the pleading of supportive facts, capable of a defamatory meaning, under any interpretation given by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence. ”

“ There are, in addition, those cases that have found a protectable interest in favor of a real-estate broker who has gained a prospective interest in a commission by introducing a buyer to a seller of property. ”

“ Plainly the complaint claims that the conduct of defendant Rosenthal was intentional. It alleges that Rosenthal gave false bids representing the estimates of Pippert and Gemini for the purpose of making his Laurriet bid look attrac-tive and of closing out Printing Mart from the bidding process. Later, Rosenthal was called by Sinoway and was told to return a bid of $ 8,600 for the printing component of the job alone. Those allegations may fairly be read to allege that Rosenthal acted with the intent to secure for Laurriet the printing job at almost any cost. ”

“ One general principle of agency law states that when an employee performs an act that is otherwise a tort, the employee is not relieved of liability simply because he or she acted on behalf of the employer. Moss v. Jones, 93 N.J. Super. 179, 184 (App.Div.1966) ; Mayfair Fabrics v. Henley, 101 N.J. Super. 363, 369 (Law Div.1968) ; Whalen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 73 N.J.L. 192, 194 (Sup.Ct.1906) ; Brokaw v. New Jersey R.R. and Transp. ”

“ The import of the allegations that plaintiffs "were not qualified to do the work for defendant Sharp" and that plaintiffs did unreasonably-priced, inadequate work is clear. At least it is clear that those statements could not be held as a matter of law [p767] to be not defamatory. Moreover, a modern usage dictionary defines the noun "rip off" as
[1]
The import is again unmistakable. We note also that it is not necessary for the complaint to contain a "verbatim tran-scription of the words spoken." Kotok Bldg. v. Charvine Co., 183 N.J. Super. 101, 105 (Law Div.1981) ; Hand v. ”

“ Defendants Pippert and Gemini are not parties to this appeal; we discuss the Sharp-employee defendants below. See infra at 760-63.
Without searching far, courts have succeeded in finding a reasonable expectation of economic benefit. In Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Memorial Park, supra, 43 N.J. Super. 244, the court found that an independent maker of cemetery markers had a reasonable expectation of selling monuments to the public, which had been interfered with by a grave-marker-fee [p754] requirement imposed by a cemetery. ”

“ Holding that in cases involving private persons and matters not of public concern there need not be an allegation of either damage or fault are Nelson v. Lapeyrouse Grain Corp., 534 So.2d 1085, 1095-96 (Ala.1988) ”