undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek5mo ago0 comments

There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, (2) knowledge by the defendants of it, (3) intentional and unjustified inducements by the defendants to break it, followed by (4) an actual breach that (5) caused damages.

Doesn't seem like that would fit here.

This seems like more of an ethical dilemma than a legal one.

0 comments

Retric5mo ago

> There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract,

Your (1) is false. You can damage a business relationship that doesn’t involve a signed contract.

“Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor intentionally acts to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

do_not_redeem5mo ago

They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. They're just doing something they would have done anyway.

You can't claim tortious interference just because someone throws a wrench in your business plans. Sanborn has about as much of a case as Microsoft has against Linus Torvalds for creating Linux and hurting their sales of Windows. (I'll give you this one for free: none.)

Retric5mo ago

> They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business.

That’s arguable. They sent him an email concerned about the harm of disclosure with the upcoming auction. They then apparently got offended by the offer of money to sign an NDA which calls their future motives into question as they now had a beef with the guy.

Saying the actions themselves were not improper is also a defense, and could be perfectly viable even if they had beef with the guy.

1 more reply

gamblor9565mo ago

That's not a tort in American law. In this country contractual arrangement is required for tortious interference.

Retric5mo ago

There was a contract between the auction house and the artist.

However that’s not strictly required: “Wrongful interference in a business relationship occurs when there is no contract. The defendant attempts to disrupt the relationship, causing economic harm. If the defendant defames the business owner’s product, resulting in loss of business, that is tortious interference in the business.”

https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/liability-and-insuranc...

1 more reply

tptacekOP5mo ago

OK, but the interference still needs to be improper!

Retric5mo ago

Agreed, though I’m not sure if it would be considered proper or improper here.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse