file photo by Boyd Loving
Reader says regardless of whether the act is considered criminal Sedon’s got a potential claim Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship
Sedon’s got a potential claim in civil court, regardless of whether the act is considered criminal. Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship is nothing to engage in lightly. If you engage in it, make sure you’ve got a darn good reason for doing so, because you should expect to be sued, and made to pay money in compensation for the damage you’ve done. To start with, the plaintiff could name the defendant(s) as John and Jane Doe if your identity is unknown at the time of filing the lawsuit. Only later, after your identity has been determined through the process of legal discovery (Sedon’s former employer can be forced to comply and cough up the relevant data and documentation) and/or forensic digital investigation (e.g., if the email was sent anonymously, examining the related metadata to determine the sender’s IP address, and going where the evidence leads you until the sender is identified), your actual name will eventually be added to the lawsuit, you will become a defendant, and you will be summoned publicly to answer the claim against you.
https://www.steinlegal.com/news/NJSB-GiglArticle_feb08.php
Tortious Interference:
What are the Rules of the Game?
By Robyn B. Gigl
In the seminal case of Printing Mart v. Sharpe Electronics1, the New Jersey Supreme Court laid out the four prong test that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to establish a cause of action for tortious interference with either contract or prospective economic advantage. The plaintiff must prove that it has some protectable right, either a contractual relationship or a prospective economic right; 2 the plaintiff must establish that the interference was done intentionally and with “malice”, which is defined to mean harm that was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse; 3 the plaintiff must establish that the interference caused a loss and in situations where the plaintiff does not have an established contract right but claims a loss of a prospective gain, the plaintiff must show that there was a reasonable probability that it would have received the alleged gain; 4 and finally the plaintiff must prove that the loss in question caused damages to the plaintiff. 5
While certainly there can be disputes as to whether or not a plaintiff really did have a legitimate prospective economic advantage that was interfered with, 6 the most difficult prong of the Printing Mart test for litigants, practitioners and the courts to deal with is whether or not the interference was done intentionally and with “malice” and exactly constitutes malice in the tortious interference context.7 In this regard, our courts have recognized that when looking at business practices, determining what conduct is justified is governed by a “somewhat amorphous”8standard. In particular, New Jersey Courts have appeared to have difficulty in defining and applying this somewhat amorphous test for reasonableness in the context of businesses that are in direct competition with one another. Trying to operate under admittedly amorphous standards makes it difficult for the business community, practitioners and trial judges to differentiate conduct that is sanctioned by the rules of the game and that for which liability may be imposed. This article gives an overview of the important cases in the area in an attempt to help practitioners navigate the murky “rules of the game”.
