Record contained sufficient evidence to support Dist. Ct.’s finding, after bench trial under Texas law, that defendant did not tortiously interfere with plaintiff’s contract with third-party calling for third-party to build in-office pharmacy for plaintiff, under circumstances where third-party breached said contract and then signed similar, but more favorable contract with defendant. While plaintiff asserted that defendant had learned of plaintiff’s contract with third-party and offered third-party better deal, Dist. Ct. could properly believe defendant’s officer that he was unaware of plaintiff’s contract and reject plaintiff’s claim that defendant could have learned of said contract from plaintiff’s recorded security interest in third-party’s accounts receivables. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could credit testimony from third-party’s officer that he would have breached plaintiff’s contract regardless of defendant’s actions due to severe financial obligations imposed by said contract.