3 ms·

> Tortious interference with business > relationships occurs where the tortfeasor > intentionally acts to prevent someone from > successfully establ

> 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.

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.