Laserfiche WebLink
5. Ms. Skinner and Snowmass Mining's interference with the contract <br /> caused Defendants damages. <br /> CJI (Civil) 24:1. <br /> There was absolutely no evidence presented at trial that Mr. Congdon had a <br /> contract with a third person that was intentionally interfered with by Ms. Skinner or <br /> Snowmass Mining. There was no evidence of a contract at all. Defendants have <br /> therefore failed to prove this claim and judgment is entered in favor of Ms. Skinner and <br /> Snowmass Mining and against Defendants on the Fourth Claim for Relief. <br /> INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSEPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS <br /> There was also no evidence present at trial that Ms. Skinner or Snowmass <br /> Mining interfered with any prospective business relation of Mr. Congdon's. Defendants <br /> have therefore failed to prove this claim and judgment is entered in favor of Ms. Skinner <br /> and Snowmass Mining and against Defendants on the 5`h Claim for Relief. <br /> INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS <br /> In the 6th Claim for Relief, Defendants assert a counterclaim/cross claim for <br /> intentional infliction of emotional distress. This was not pursued by Defendants at trial. <br /> Therefore there is no evidence to support the claim. Judgment is therefore entered in <br /> favor of Julie Skinner and Snowmass Mining and against Defendants on the 6ch Claims <br /> for Relief. <br /> BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY <br /> In its 7th Claim for Relief, Defendants assert a claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. <br /> 24 <br />