Enticing a third party to breach a valid contract

This preview shows page 6 - 7 out of 13 pages.

enticing a third party to breach a valid contract with the plaintiffoMust demonstrate:The plaintiff had a valid contract with a third partyThe defendant knew of the contract an its termsThe defendant took action knowing it was highly likely to cause the third party to breach the contract with the plaintiffThe defendant undertook the action for the purpose of causing the third party to breach the contractThe third party did in fact breach the contractAs a result of the breach, the plaintiff was injuredUnfair compensation entering into business for the sole purpose of causing a loss of business to another firmMisappropriation use of an unsolicited idea for a product, service, or marketing method without compensating the originator of the ideaIntentional Torts Against Property Trespass to Realty intentionally entering the land of another or causing an object to be placed on the land of another without the landowner’s permissionConversion intentionally permanent removal of property from the rightful owner’s possession and controlNegligent TortsNegligence failure to live up to the standards of care that a reasonable person would meet to protectothers from an unreasonable risk of harmoTo prove negligence, four elements must be proven:Duty of care – standard of care that a defendant owes the plaintiffReasonable person standard the defendant must have exercised the degree of care and skill that a reasonable person would have exercised in similar circumstances to protect the plaintiff from an unreasonable risk of injury; Objective standard; it is an illustration of how members of society would expect an individual to act in a certain situation; A judge or jury must decide what the reasonable person would do in a similar situation and compare this standard to the actions of the individual in the casebefore itBreach of duty – plaintiff must prove the defendant’s conduct was not consistent with the dutyCausation – actual cause (factual matter) and proximate cause (foreseeability) Damages – compensable injuryPlaintiff’s Doctrines For when proof of negligence is not availableoRes ipsa loquitur legal doctrine that allows a judge or a jury to infer negligence on the basis ofthe fact that accidents of the type that happened to the plaintiff generally do not occur in the absence of negligence on the part of someone in the defendant’s positionPlaintiff must demonstrate The event was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligenceOther responsible causes, including the conduct of third parties and the plaintiff, have been sufficiently eliminatedThe indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiffoNegligence per se legal doctrine that says when a statute has been enacted to prevent a certaintype of harm and the defendant violates that statute, causing that type of harm to befall the plaintiff, the plaintiff may use proof of the violation as proof of negligence

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture