Business Torts Outline

Business Torts Stucke Fall 2017
 
Intentional Interference w/ Contracts and Economic Opportunities
 
One who intentionally does anything that on its face is injurious to another is liable to repair the resulting damage; unless he can establish a liberty or privilege through a social benefit
Intentional= purpose to cause the harm that ensues, not just intend or purpose of doing the act but purpose of causing the consequence
Motive vs intent
Motive to cause the harm is worse than intent
Elements: when start business:
Not for the sake of profit to himself
For the sole purpose of driving his competitor out of business
Intention of retiring upon the accomplishment
Do not need to have bad motive
Tuttle v. Buck- Banker set up a barber shop for sole purpose of drawing customers away from Tuttle’s barber shop to get him out of business. Claimed Buck did not act for a legitimate business interest but to injure Tuttle.
D won b/c no allegation that intentionally running at financial loss to himself or that after driving P out of business D closed up or intended to close up his shop.
But when a man starts an opposition place of business, not for the sake of profit to himself, but regardless of loss to himself, and for the sole purpose of driving his competitor out of business, and with the intention of himself retiring upon the accomplishment of his malevolent purpose, he is guilty of a wanton wrong and an actionable tort.
Social interest can be an exception due to the balance of society wanting those types of activities to take place
POTENTIAL DEFENSES: state not illegal means, unethical means, not the sole motive, socially justified, just part of competition
Intent doesn’t always mean culpable:
Intent + illegal means = improper
Intent + unethical means = improper
Intent + sole motive = improper
Intent alone = likely not enough to be improper
Negligence = not enough
 
Injurious Falsehood; Product Disparagement
Injurious falsehood
One who publishes a false statement harmful to the interests of another is subject to liability for pecuniary loss resulting to the other if
ELEMENTS
(a) he intends for publication of the statement to result in harm to interests of the other having a pecuniary value, or either recognizes or should recognize that it is likely to do so, AND
(b) he knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity
INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD = must be either a knowing or reckless falsehood or spite, ill-will or the like in a false statement likely to cause pecuniary damages.
Injurious falsehood- harm comes in form of interference w/ contract or economic opportunity but w/ a publication
Slander of title version seen in Haan = protects econ interests associated w/ a clear title –> a falsehood about Ps security interests might suffice
Any kind of property including intangible property can be protected from the slander of title
 
Disparagement of title- slander of title
Gregory’s INC. v. Haan: Haan built + sold homes. Parties agreed payment for materials not due until receipt.
Denial of extent of ownership. EX: A statement is disparaging if it casts doubts upon the extent of the other's ownership, as by the assertion of an easement over land or a lien against it.
Restatement § 624: Disparagement of Title—Slander of Title: The rules on liability of the publication of an injurious falsehood stated in 623A apply to the publication of a false statement disparaging another's property rights in land, chattels or intangible things, that the publisher should recognize as likely to result in pecuniary harm to the other through the conduct of third persons in respect to the other's interests in the property.
must be shown that publication of the falsehood: (1) was derogatory to the title to plaintiff's property, its quality, or plaintiff's business in general, calculated to prevent others from dealing with plaintiff or to interfere with plaintiff's relations with others to plaintiff's disadvantage (often stated as malice); (2) was communicated to a third party; (3) materially or substantially induced others not to deal with plaintiff; and (4) resulted in special damage
Conditional Privilege: person suing for disparagement of title must show malice or lien filer had illegitimate purpose… even if erroneous filing OKAY if acted in reasonable belief that filing was valid –> KNOWLEDGE OR RECKLESS DISREGARD IS REQUIRED NOT JUST NEGLIGENCE
Thus one who knows his option to purchase land is void but records it anyway, is liable for injurious falsehood of the slander of title variety
Attorney’s fees: Slander of title = P can recover the reasonable costs of clearing the title or otherwise reducing the harm done by the disparagement, including attorney’s fees. Counts as special, pecuniary damages.
Product Disparagement—trade libel
AUVIL v. CBS “60 Minutes”- (Product disparagement- i.e. trade libel): facts: 60 minut