Cited by

Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324, 340 (2011) (observing that whether to allow a party to amend their pleadings rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that we will not disturb the court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion).

3 [¶9] A valid, enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and a meeting of the minds.

They assert that the trial court misapplied the test we outlined in Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324, 342-43 (2011).

To prove a claim of abuse of process, the plaintiffs must prove that: (1) a person used (2) legal process, whether criminal or civil, (3) against the party, (4) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed, and (5) caused harm to the party (6) by the abuse of process.

An amendment may be denied if it would not cure the defect in the complaint.

However, we need not assume the truth of statements in the complaint that are merely conclusions of law.

“An action for abuse of process is concerned with the improper use of process after it has been issued.” Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324, 335 (2011) (emphasis added).

2 The trial court ruled that, under Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324, 337 (2011), because Northern did not, in fact, breach the contract, but merely decided not to renew it, there could be no liability for tortious interference with contractual relations.

We have said that conduct falls within the scope of employment if: “(1) it is of the kind the employee is employed to perform; (2) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; and (3) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.” Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324, 342-43 (2011) (quotation and brackets omitted).

The tort of intentional misrepresentation, or fraud, must be proved by showing that the representation was made with knowledge of its falsity or with conscious indifference to its truth and with the intention of causing another person to rely upon the representation.

The record does not establish that the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to include the alleged misrepresentations, see Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324, 332 (2011) (stating fraud must be pleaded with specificity), or otherwise brought the new allegations to the trial court’s attention in a timely motion for reconsideration, see Super.

o pleadings “in any stage of the proceedings, upon such terms as the court shall deem just and reasonable, when it shall appear to the court that it is necessary for the prevention of injustice.” Accordingly, liberal amendment of pleadings is permitted unless the changes would surprise the opposing party, introduce an entirely new cause of action, or *648 call for substantially different evidence.

In reviewing this motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the petitioner’s pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.