Comment by Retric

Comment by Retric 3 hours ago

8 replies

> 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

gamblor956 27 minutes ago

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

tptacek 3 hours ago

OK, but the interference still needs to be improper!

  • Retric 2 hours ago

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

do_not_redeem 3 hours 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.)

  • Retric 2 hours 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.

    • tptacek 2 hours ago

      "To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession."

      They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!

      • Retric 2 hours ago

        It was claimed they committed copyright infringement and they admit to photographing his works as part of this discovery.

        It actually being copyright infringement is questionable, but if so it would be improper behavior.

        • tptacek 2 hours ago

          Yep! That'd be a real claim. I hadn't seen that earlier.