T206 w/ no red ink ends early on eBay. GRRR!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom L.

I am pretty sure your interpretation of contractual interference is wrong:

The following is taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

"Although the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference vary from one jursidiction to another, they typically include the following:

1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
5. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs."

Also, under common law: "Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised."

[Source: Jesse Dukeminier and James E. Krier, Property, Fifth Edition, Aspen Law & Business (New York, 2002), p. 31-36.]

Anyway, I think that all of the elements are met when someone convinces the seller to renege on an off-line sale.

Tom



I saw the post by Adam (warshawlaw) after I put all of this down. He is a California attorney - and a damn good one by all reports - and so I would take his word as gospel on this issue.