4 ms·

Why is that a weak argument and not a valid cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship/contract?

tmnvix 9y ago
To me (not a lawyer) it seems like a weak argument. The policies in question are Birkenstock's. Amazon doesn't necessarily know anything about the restrictions placed on the retailers.
- will_brown 9y ago
  If this were to go to court during the discovery process Amazin would have to disclose all communications their employees had regarding the Birkenstock brand. Of course there would be other evidence that Amazon was on notice of violating Birkenstock's policy which Birkenstock would be able to produce, and it's hard to imagine employees didn't have internal communications in response.
  - CWuestefeld 9y ago
    I can't recall the specifics now, but there have been recent cases showing that after the first sale, the manufacturer no longer retains any right to determine what happens to their products. So if a Birkenstock shop sells product to Amazon (not through Amazon, but to them), it's none of Birkenstock's business what Amazon does with it no matter what Birkenstock's policies are.
    - ridgeguy 9y ago
      Perhaps Birkenstock-only stores have a contract with Birkenstock that defines transfer of product from Birkenstock to the store as not a sale. Could be a consignment. Then the first sale would be to a retail customer (or to Amazon, in the case discussed here).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - eridius 9y ago
      Birkenstock can't restrict what customers do with the shoes, that's true. But that doesn't mean Birkenstock can't refuse to sell to that customer again. Also, I don't know if any of this applies to resellers. The reseller isn't the customer.
      - lsaferite 9y ago
        Unless the retailer is selling the shoes on consignment or something, the retailer is the customer of Birkenstock.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    In fact Birkenstock just needs to send a cease and desist letter to amazon and that is enough to prove that amazon knew about this policy.
Allower 9y ago
Frankly its more disturbing that Birkenstock would try to compel its retailers to only sell to certain customers. THAT is a far more disturbing precedent.
peteretep 9y ago
> Tortious interference with business > relationships occurs where the tortfeasor > intentionally acts to prevent someone from > successfully establishing or maintaining business > relationships with others So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship being maintained, which seems a stretch. Further: > acts improperly with malicious intent and > actually interferes with the contract/expectancy, > causing economic harm This also isn't something I'd want to spend time and money arguing with Amazon's legal team over, which is presumably why they're just "considering" it, rather than doing it.
- eridius 9y ago
  > So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship being maintained According to the article, Birkenstock policy is if anybody sells their Birkenstocks to Amazon, then they'll be blacklisted and will never receive another pair of Birkenstocks ever again. That sure sounds like Amazon's action stopping a business relationship from being maintained.
  - peteretep 9y ago
    Your opinion clearly differs from mine, but I struggle to see any of the examples the law is meant to target as being similar. Amazon's not stopping the business relationship from being maintained, Birkenstock is via their arbitrary agreements. If anything, I'd see Amazon as having a strong case that Birkenstock are interfering in their relationship with their sellers.
    - eridius 9y ago
      What do you mean by "arbitrary agreements"? Denigrating their policy as "arbitrary" sure makes it sound like you're biased. I'm sure that once Amazon started reaching out to sellers to buy Birkenstocks, they were told about Birkenstock policy. If they continue reaching out to sellers after learning that (and it appears as though they did) then I would think you can make a good case that Amazon is deliberately interfering with the sellers' relationships with Birkenstock, because Amazon knows that if they're successful in convincing a seller to sell their stock to Amazon then the seller will be blacklisted by Birkenstock. That said, IANAL, so I have no idea if this case would actually be successful if brought to suit. But it looks to me as though it has a chance.

tmnvix 9y ago

To me (not a lawyer) it seems like a weak argument. The policies in question are Birkenstock's. Amazon doesn't necessarily know anything about the restrictions placed on the retailers.

will_brown 9y ago
If this were to go to court during the discovery process Amazin would have to disclose all communications their employees had regarding the Birkenstock brand. Of course there would be other evidence that Amazon was on notice of violating Birkenstock's policy which Birkenstock would be able to produce, and it's hard to imagine employees didn't have internal communications in response.
- CWuestefeld 9y ago
  I can't recall the specifics now, but there have been recent cases showing that after the first sale, the manufacturer no longer retains any right to determine what happens to their products. So if a Birkenstock shop sells product to Amazon (not through Amazon, but to them), it's none of Birkenstock's business what Amazon does with it no matter what Birkenstock's policies are.
  - ridgeguy 9y ago
    Perhaps Birkenstock-only stores have a contract with Birkenstock that defines transfer of product from Birkenstock to the store as not a sale. Could be a consignment. Then the first sale would be to a retail customer (or to Amazon, in the case discussed here).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - eridius 9y ago
    Birkenstock can't restrict what customers do with the shoes, that's true. But that doesn't mean Birkenstock can't refuse to sell to that customer again. Also, I don't know if any of this applies to resellers. The reseller isn't the customer.
    - lsaferite 9y ago
      Unless the retailer is selling the shoes on consignment or something, the retailer is the customer of Birkenstock.
- bluGill 9y ago
  In fact Birkenstock just needs to send a cease and desist letter to amazon and that is enough to prove that amazon knew about this policy.

Allower 9y ago

Frankly its more disturbing that Birkenstock would try to compel its retailers to only sell to certain customers. THAT is a far more disturbing precedent.

peteretep 9y ago

> Tortious interference with business > relationships occurs where the tortfeasor > intentionally acts to prevent someone from > successfully establishing or maintaining business > relationships with others So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship being maintained, which seems a stretch. Further: > acts improperly with malicious intent and > actually interferes with the contract/expectancy, > causing economic harm This also isn't something I'd want to spend time and money arguing with Amazon's legal team over, which is presumably why they're just "considering" it, rather than doing it.

eridius 9y ago
> So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship being maintained According to the article, Birkenstock policy is if anybody sells their Birkenstocks to Amazon, then they'll be blacklisted and will never receive another pair of Birkenstocks ever again. That sure sounds like Amazon's action stopping a business relationship from being maintained.
- peteretep 9y ago
  Your opinion clearly differs from mine, but I struggle to see any of the examples the law is meant to target as being similar. Amazon's not stopping the business relationship from being maintained, Birkenstock is via their arbitrary agreements. If anything, I'd see Amazon as having a strong case that Birkenstock are interfering in their relationship with their sellers.
  - eridius 9y ago
    What do you mean by "arbitrary agreements"? Denigrating their policy as "arbitrary" sure makes it sound like you're biased. I'm sure that once Amazon started reaching out to sellers to buy Birkenstocks, they were told about Birkenstock policy. If they continue reaching out to sellers after learning that (and it appears as though they did) then I would think you can make a good case that Amazon is deliberately interfering with the sellers' relationships with Birkenstock, because Amazon knows that if they're successful in convincing a seller to sell their stock to Amazon then the seller will be blacklisted by Birkenstock. That said, IANAL, so I have no idea if this case would actually be successful if brought to suit. But it looks to me as though it has a chance.