Help with Question

Lothar owns a bakery. He has been trying to obtain a long-term contract with the owner of Martha’s Tea Salons for some time. Lothar starts a local advertising campaign on radio and television and in the newspaper. This advertising campaign is so persuasive that Martha decides to break the contract she has had with Harley’s Bakery so that she can patronize Lothar’s bakery. Is Lothar liable to Harley’s Bakery for the tort of wrongful interference with a contractual relationship? Is Martha liable for this tort?
Any answer would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Answer #1
For tortious interference:
– A valid contract or contractual relationships exists between the two parties
– The third party tortfeasor had knowledge of the contract or contractual relationship
– The third party intended to convince or induce one of the parties to the contract to commit a breach
– The third party was not privileged or authorized in any way to induce the breach
– The contract was in fact breached
– The non-breaching party suffered some sort of measurable damages
Work it out from there
PS: basic law 101. If this is for your homework / course, and you couldn’t find this base information either from your text or the net, the field of law might not be for you mate. The second part of this question would have you cite at least 3 cases, one of which must be what is considered the “landmark” one, demonstrating the concept of tortious interference, and summarize the reasoning of the Court.
Answer #2
To answer this question, you must first decide if there is a legal theory under which Harley may be able to recover. You may recall from your reading the intentional tort of “wrongful interference with a contractual relationship.” To recover damages under this theory, Harley would need to show that he and Martha had a valid contract, which Lothar knew of this contractual relationship between Martha and Harley, and that Lothar intentionally convinced Martha to break her contract with Harley. Even though Lothar hoped that his advertisements would persuade Martha to break her contract with Harley, the question states that Martha’s decision to change bakers was based solely on the advertising and not on anything else that Lothar did. Lothar’s advertisements did not constitute a tort. Note, though, that while Harley cannot collect from Lothar for Martha’s actions, he does have a cause of action against Martha for her breach of their contract.
Answer #3
Maybe not so JF:
Lothar starts a local advertising campaign on radio and television and in the newspaper. This advertising campaign is so persuasive ...
There is no indication
– that this advertising was “normal” in the regular course of business. Say that this was the first time he had advertised, one could extrapolate that it was done for purposes other than for advertising itself. Although nothing by itself, it could strengthen the other requirements for damages
– of the nature of the advertising; if the advertising said “L’s products are far superiour to H; H uses inferior quality ingredients and uses compost pile instead of ovens to bake his goods”, this would be another clear indication that the advertising had “focus” with the intent of diminishing the reputation of H. Again, not in itself an issue, but when combined with the other requirements.
This question, or ones very similar, are common 101 tort law introducers. There is no answer to it. The purpose is to discover if the student has been able to obtain a basic understanding of the 6 requirements of tortious interference through reasoning; thus the lack of facts in the question.
Answer #4
For tortious interference:
- A valid contract or contractual relationships exists between the two parties
- The third party tortfeasor had knowledge of the contract or contractual relationship
- The third party intended to convince or induce one of the parties to the contract to commit a breach
- The third party was not privileged or authorized in any way to induce the breach
- The contract was in fact breached
- The non-breaching party suffered some sort of measurable damages
Work it out from there
PS: basic law 101. If this is for your homework / course, and you couldn't find this base information either from your text or the net, the field of law might not be for you mate. The second part of this question would have you cite at least 3 cases, one of which must be what is considered the "landmark" one, demonstrating the concept of tortious interference, and summarize the reasoning of the Court.
I know the field of law is not for me but i have to take this class to graduate and this question is pretty hard
Answer #5
Use your imagination on each of the 6 criteria when needed
Martha decides to break the contract she has had with Harley’s Bakery
What type of contract and did she really “break” it? For example, did the contract provide that Martha would purchase her baked goods exclusively from H. If not, then the mere act of using an additional supplier may not be a breach at all. In your answer, you MUST conclude that there is a valid, legally binding contract between H and M – is there isn’t one, you don’t even discuss the other 5 requirements.
Intent
You must be able to demonstrate L’s intent to have M break the contract with H. Go forth and use your imagination as to how L may have done this through advertising. Adding to what I commented already on advertising, would your answer change if I said that L’s advertising was not for L at all – but for M? “Enjoy your favourtie Lothar’s crumpet at the fabulous Martha’s Tea Salon”.
Clearly the nature of the advertising is key in demonstrating intent.
obtain a long-term contract with the owner of Martha’s Tea Salons for some time
What else has he already attempted and does the latest advertising campaign appear to be a continuation of previous actions to obtain a contract? Again this goes to the question of intent.
It is even possible that the actions prior to the advertising already provided sufficient grounds for damage. The advertising could be the proverbial cherry on top.
third party was not privileged or authorized in any way to induce the breach
See https://www.dropbox.com/s/3e6y4mpt6e80zrp/Torts_%20Privilege%20to%20Interfere%20with%20Contract%20Relations.pdf?dl=0 I’m not doing all of it for you! But I hope this gives you some direction.
Answer #6
From your message, I thought that I should post my response here as well.
Firstly, there is not enough information to say whether there is anything to be liable for! That is the point of the question.
Marks will be assigned to the discussion of the 6 requirements for tortious interference, not whether you “get the right answer” – as there isn’t one.
Assuming there was a breach of contract, it would be Martha who would be at fault. It is never (ok … rarely ever) the third-party. The contract is between M and H, not L; because L is not a party to the contract how can he be liable for a breach of said contract?