Difference between revisions of "Parler's tortious interference claim"
(Created page with "This is a novel case for tortious interference. Ordinarily, the claim is brought when Defendant has blocked a specific deal between Plaintiff and a specific Third Party. Her...") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The tortious interference claim does rely on the validity of the breach of contract claim. That is because for tortious interference, the Defendant’s interfering act must be unlawful. Thus, the import of the claim is that it adds to the damages that would be paid, and it is an entree for punitive damages, which I don’t think are allowed for breach of contract, though I could be wrong. | The tortious interference claim does rely on the validity of the breach of contract claim. That is because for tortious interference, the Defendant’s interfering act must be unlawful. Thus, the import of the claim is that it adds to the damages that would be paid, and it is an entree for punitive damages, which I don’t think are allowed for breach of contract, though I could be wrong. | ||
| + | ---------------------------------------------------- | ||
| + | Back to [[Parler company]] or the [http://rasmusen.org/parler/index.htm ''Parler v. Amazon''] website. | ||
---------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | ||
Latest revision as of 14:16, 22 January 2021
This is a novel case for tortious interference. Ordinarily, the claim is brought when Defendant has blocked a specific deal between Plaintiff and a specific Third Party. Here, the claim is that Defendant has blocked millions of deals between Plaintiff and unspecified Third Parties. This strikes new ground, which is always hard to get a court to accept, but it is perfectly in accord with the doctrine.
Consider a hypothetical. Suppose the Plaintiff was going to sell his fishing catch at an auction that is held on Friday. The Defendant locks him in his hotel room all day, though, so he misses the auction and his fish spoil. Does Plaintiff have a civil claim against Defendant for damages due to missing the auction? Plaintiff does not know exactly who would have bought the fish, but he has evidence that fish like his sold for $10,000 that day. I think his claim is good.
The tortious interference claim does rely on the validity of the breach of contract claim. That is because for tortious interference, the Defendant’s interfering act must be unlawful. Thus, the import of the claim is that it adds to the damages that would be paid, and it is an entree for punitive damages, which I don’t think are allowed for breach of contract, though I could be wrong.
Back to Parler company or the Parler v. Amazon website.
