Analogies usually fall short of their intent, but I'll try to come up with one anyway: Suppose I'm contracted to fix the roof on your house, and you need me to finish the job by the weekend because it's supposed to rain. In fact, the finish date is in the contract. Now suppose that CowboyNeal (hey, why not) wants me to do some work on his house, and he pays me extra to do the work for him ahead of all the other work I'm supposed to do. As a result, I don't even get started on your house before the weekend gets here, and the rain causes a bunch of damage to the inside of your house.
Now, you could sue me and probably win, not only for any money that you paid me already (because I broke the contract) but for the water damage that was caused to the rest of your house as a foreseeable consequence of not honoring the contract. But you could also sue CowboyNeal for interfering with the contract that you and I had, and there's at least a possibility that you could claim damages against either or both of us (jointly and severally, meaning you can claim your pound of flesh from whichever of us you choose, as long as you get exactly one pound of flesh total).
IANALE, but one thing to keep in mind though is the level of Neal's knowledge of your existing contracts. I.e., if it was a
"I'll pay you 15% over your normal fee if you switch to my repairs before all others."
vs.
"I'll pay you 15% over your normal fee if you switch to my repairs before doing those Sang contracted for!"
Then we get into the whole issue of proving knowledge of the contract to the extent that Neal was aware that his offer would interfere with mine, etc.
The interesting part in this, to me at least, is that the defendant's business model is inherently tied to the continued success of Blizzard's game.
In my state we have to prove that the defendant acted "without justification" in these cases. That is, that they had no legal right to screw with the relationship. The interesting quirk is:
An absence of justification will be found where the defendant has no legal right to take the challenged actions, but a party may be justified in interfering if he has a legal right to do so. SSM Health Care, Inc. v. Deen, 890 S.W.2d 343, 346 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). "One who has an economic interest in a business relationship or expectancy cannot be held liable for inducing a breach thereof even though motivated by self-interest, in the absence of pleading and proof that such self-interested purpose was accomplished by improper means." Id. Improper means are those which are "independently wrongful," including "misrepresentation of fact, threats, violence, defamation, and restraint of trade." Murray, 862 S.W.2d at 935 (quotation omitted).
From the business point, I'd think the defendant was "justified" in the sense that even though interfering with the contract he did so out of an economic interest and, I assume, didn't state you could use the program and still be within the EULA constraints, beat you into using the hack, say you were a noob for not using the hack, nor attempt to somehow monopolize the whole WoW cheat scene.
