Disturbing disturbance , also known as intentional interruption with contractual relations , in common lawsuits, occurs when a person deliberately damages a contractual or other business relationship with a third party causing economic hazards. For example, one can use extortion to make contractors breach contracts or they may impair a person's ability to honor contracts with clients by deliberately refusing to deliver the required goods.
A tort of negligence occurs when a one-party's negligence undermines contractual or business relationships between other parties, causing economic losses, such as, by blocking waterways or causing blackouts that prevent utility companies from upholding existing contracts with consumers.
Video Tortious interference
Description
Tortureable interference with contractual rights may occur when either party persuades the other party to breach his contract with a third party (for example, using extortion, threats, influence, etc.) or where a person consciously interferes with the contractor's ability to perform his contractual obligations, from receiving the promised service or item (for example, by refusing to ship items). Tortoiseoror is a person who disrupts contractual relationships among others. When a plaintiff is aware of an existing contract and deliberately induces a breach by one of the contract holders, it is called, "painful persuasion from breach of contract".
Embarrassing interference with a business relationship occurs where the intruder deliberately acts to prevent a person from successfully establishing or maintaining a business relationship with others. This disturbance may occur when either party consciously takes an action that causes a second party to enter into a business relationship with a third party that may occur. An example is when a tortfeasor offers to sell a property to someone below market value knowing that they are in the final stages of a sale with a third party waiting for the next settlement date to formalize the writing of the sale. This kind of behavior is called "torturous disorder in the expectation of business".
The above situation can only be acted upon if someone with actual knowledge, and intends to disrupt, contract or hope that exists among other parties, behaves inappropriately with malicious intent and completely disrupts contracts/expectations, causing economic losses. Historically, there is no actionable cause if the disorder is just inattentive . However, for some jurisdictions recognize such claims, though many do not. Interference from negligent interference occurs when a one-party's negligence damages a contractual or business relationship between another party causing economic losses, such as, by blocking waterways or causing blackouts to prevent utility companies from upholding existing contracts with consumers.
Maps Tortious interference
Case law
An early example, perhaps the earliest, recognition of this lawsuit occurred at Garret v Taylor , 79 Eng. Rep. 485 (K.B.1620). In that case, the defendant took the customer away from the plaintiff's mine by threatening them with chaos and also threatening to "coax [them] with clothes." The King's Bench Court said that "the defendant threatened violence up to the level of attacking... the plaintiff's customer... then" they all stopped buying. "Therefore the court upholds the verdict for the plaintiff.
In a similar case, Tarleton v McGawley , 170 Eng. Rep. 153 (K.B. 1793), the defendant fired from his Othello ship off the coast of Africa to the native population while "trying and maliciously intended to deter and deter indigenous people from trading with" merchant vessels rival Bannister. This action causes indigenous people (prospective plaintiffs) to flee the scene, depriving potential plaintiff of their business. The King's Bench Court held actionable action. The defendant claimed, by justification, that the local indigenous authorities had given him an exclusive franchise to trade with his people, but the court rejected this defense.
The disorder is described in the case of Keeble v Hickeringill , (1707) 103 Eng. Rep. 1127, arranged as "a violation of this case". In that case, the defendant used a rifle to drive the duck from the pool that the plaintiff sued for the purpose of catching the ducks. Thus, unlike previous cases, here actionable behavior does not directly drive prospective customers away, but rather eliminates the underlying problem of a prospective business. Although the duck has not been arrested, Judge Holt writes to the court that "where violent or malicious acts are committed against employment, the profession, or the means of obtaining human livelihood, there is action which lies in all cases." The court noted that the defendant would have the right to withdraw the ducks to his own pool, raising as a ratio of 1410 cases in which the court considers that no cause of action would lie in which a principal opens a new school that draws students away from the old school.
The above implementation has been modified in English law. In OBG v Allan et al. 2008 1AC 1
Wrong interruption: Integrated theory that is treated causes losses in a way that is unlawful as an extension of the tort that causes a breach of contract abandoned; induce breach of contract and cause loss in an unlawful manner are two separate lawsuits. induced breach of contract is a violation of accessory responsibility, and the intention to cause breach of contract is a necessary and sufficient requirement for accountability; a person should know that he encourages breach of contract and intends to commit; that conscious decisions not to investigate the existence of a fact can be regarded as knowledge for the purpose of the lawsuit; that a person who deliberately causes a breach of contract as a means to an end has the necessary intent even if he is not motivated by malice but has acted with the motive of securing an economic advantage for himself; that, however, a breach of contract that is not an end in itself or a means to an end but merely predictable consequences of a person's actions do not incur liability; and that there should be no secondary responsibility without primary responsibility, and therefore one can not be responsible for encouraging breach of contract unless there is actually a violation by the contractor.
Causes harm in an unlawful manner: acts against a third party are considered unlawful only if such action can be acted upon by such third party if he or she suffers any loss; that an unlawful means comprises acts intended to cause harm to the claimant by interfering with the freedom of a third party in a manner that is unlawful to a third party and which is intended to cause harm to the plaintiff, but excluding actions that may be unlawful to a third party but not affecting his freedom to deal with plaintiffs. The strict responsibility for conversion applies only to an interest in property and not to vote in action; it is too radical to impose responsibility for the pure economic losses on the recipients who have been appointed and have acted in good faith. It also opens positions where they violate the obligations of good faith.
Common examples
- Gripping interference in business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a person's business or reputation to drive a business away.
- Interference in contractual disruption. - When a person uses "tort" (wrong action) to occur between two-party contracts of employment.
Elements
Although the specific elements necessary to prove claims of agonizing disorders vary from one jurisdiction to another, they usually include the following:
- The existence of a contractual relationship or a profitable business relationship between two parties.
- Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
- The intention of a third party to encourage a party to a relationship to break a relationship.
- Lack of third party privileges to cause such violations.
- The contractual relationship is violated.
- Damage to the party violating the violation occurs.
The first element may, in the jurisdiction of employment, be satisfied in relation to an employer/employee relationship which previously did not exist.
In California, these are elements of negligent disruption with prospective economic benefits, which the plaintiff must determine:
- the economic relationship exists between the plaintiff and the third party containing the possibility of a considerable future economic gain or economic benefit for the plaintiff;
- the defendant acknowledges the existence of the relationship and is aware or should be aware that if not acting cautiously his actions would disrupt this relationship and cause the plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the possibility of future economic benefits or benefits of the relationship;
- the defendant is negligent; and
- Such negligence causes damage to the plaintiff because the relationship is really annoying or disrupted and the plaintiff loses all or part of the profit or economic benefit that is reasonably expected from that relationship.
Some cases add that the defendant acts negligently only if "the defendant owes the plaintiff as a maintenance duty."
California and most jurisdictions argue that there is a privilege to compete in business. "Under the privilege of free competition, a competitor is free to divert business for himself as long as he uses a fair and reasonable means.Therefore, the plaintiff must present facts which indicate the defendant's defect is somehow wrong - that is, based on the facts take the defendant's action from the territory of a legitimate business transaction. "" [T] competition right he is defeated only where the defendant is involved in an unlawful or unlawful manner. " "False" in this context means "false independently" - that is, "blameworthy" or "false independently regardless of the disorder itself." This may be called inappropriate usage of means. "Generally included among the incorrect means is action that can be independently acted upon, violation of federal or state law or unethical business practices, for example, violence, false representation, unfounded litigation, defamation, trade libel, or trademark infringement. " Another example of "wrong behavior" is "fraud, misinterpretation, intimidation, coercion, obstruction or oppression of the opponent or servant or worker."
Damage
The usual legal damage to disturbing disturbances includes economic losses, if they can be proven with certainty, and mental stress. Moreover the punishment of damages may be granted if a crime on the part of the perpetrator can be established.
Fair remedies may include the release of a replacement punishment in the form of a negative order that will be used to prevent the offending party from benefiting any contractual relationships that may arise from interference, ie, the performance of the singer initially contracted with the plaintiff to appear at the same time.
Additional examples
Torture Interference with expected inheritance - Person who, by fraud, coercion or other intentional means intentionally prevents another person from receiving an inherited third person or gift he or she should receive, is subject to responsibility to the other party for loss of inheritance or prize.
See also
- Parse
- Alienation of affection
Note
Source
- Jesse Dukeminier and James E. Krier, Property, Fifth Edition , Aspen & amp; Business (New York, 2002), pp.Ã, 31-36. ISBNÃ, 0-7355-2437-8
- John L. Diamond and Lawrence C. Levine and M. Stuart Madden, Understanding Torts Second Edition , Lexis Nexis (New York, 2000), p.Ã, 413. ISBNÃ, 0-8205 -5219 -4
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments