Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
Ryerson (30,000)
LAW (1,000)
LAW 122 (900)
Lecture 3

LAW 122 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Intentional Tort, Qualified Privilege, Convenience Store


Department
Law and Business
Course Code
LAW 122
Professor
Stan Benda
Lecture
3

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 6 pages of the document.
LAW122 Lecture 3
Ch. 5: Miscellaneous Torts Affecting Businesses
Other Torts Important in The Business Context:
Conspiracy
Intimidation
Interference with
contractual
relations
Unlawful
interference with
economic relations
Receipt
Occupiers’ liability
Nuisance
Defamation
Injurious falsehood
**all essentially the same thing
DAMAGES PAID TO THE INJURED
Compensatory compensation paid in cash
Punitive jail time (e.g. for sexual assault)
Nominal no action
Court costs Tariff costs 1. Defendant cost 2. solicitor/client costs
INTENTIONAL BUSINESS TORTS
Conspiracy
Conspiracy tort that occurs when 2+ defendants agree to act together with the primary purpose
of causing the plaintiff to suffer a financial loss
Hard to prove
Raises difficult issues, legally and ethically
Intimidation
Intimidation tort that occurs when the plaintiff suffers a loss as a result of the defendant’s
threat to commit an unlawful act against either the plaintiff or a third party (i.e. unethical
business practices)
Two branches:
o Two-party intimidation when the defendant directly coerces the plaintiff into
suffering a loss (e.g. manager of a supermarket threats the owner of a small
convenience store into closing down)
o Three-party intimidation occurs when the defendant coerces a third party into
acting in a way that hurts the plaintiff (e.g. plaintiff was an employee or an
airline; the defendant, a trade union, threatened
The legal test:
o Must prove that the defendant threatened to commit an unlawful act, such as a
crime, tort, or breach of contract
o Tort does not occur unless the threatened party gave into the intimidation
As long as other elements are established, there is no need to prove that the defendant
intended to hurt the plaintiff
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Interference with Contractual Relations
Interference with contractual relations tort that occurs when the defendant disrupts a
contract that exists between the plaintiff and a third party
Risk management:
Danger in luring away competitor’s customers
Danger in luring away competitor’s workers
Forms of interference:
Direct inducement to breach of contract when the defendant directly persuades a
third party to break its contract with plaintiff
e.g. convince customer to break agreement, employee to quit job
The Legal Tests:
o Defendant must know about that contract that exists between the third party and
plaintiff
o Defendant must intend to cause the third party to breach that contract
o Defendant must actually cause the third party to break its contract with the
plaintiff
o Plaintiff must suffer a loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct
Indirect inducement to breach of contract when the defendant indirectly persuades a
third party to break its contract with the plaintiff
e.g. prevent employees from going to work, or steal worker’s tools to prevent
performance
o Plaintiff must suffer a loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct
DECEIT
Defendant makes a false statement, knows it’s false
Uses the statement with the intention to mislead the plaintiff
Plaintiff reasonably relies on the statement
Causes the plaintiff to suffer a loss (damage)
E.g. if you sell a computer saying it’s brand new but it’s used and broken
The legal test
Plaintiff must prove:
1. Defendant made a false statement
2. Defendant knew statement was false (or was reckless in determining truth)
3. Defendant intended to mislead the plaintiff
4. Plaintiff suffered loss as a result of reasonably relying upon statements
Perceptions Matter
As a plaintiff note the distinction between in an implication and an inference
DEFAMATION
Definition defendant makes a false statement that could lead a reasonable person to have lower
opinion of plaintiff (negatively affects reputation)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version