3 ms·

There does not need to be a written contractual relationship to invoke tortious interference. The followers clearly intended to support Owen financially, not Pa

There does not need to be a written contractual relationship to invoke tortious interference. The followers clearly intended to support Owen financially, not Patreon itself, so there is a financial relationship between them. But given that Patreon was clearly and obviously a man-in-the-middle of the relationship and had policies which could be violated and which would terminate the relationship, and all parties knew this up front, then it is also clear to me that Patreon can freely choose to stop being a man-in-the-middle, and as such I don't think the tortious interference claim makes sense in this case.

gamblor956 6y ago
There absolutely needs to be a contractual relationship between two parties in order for one of those parties to to make a successful claim for tortious interference of contract by another party. It's literally Torts 101. If the followers wanted to have a contractual arrangement with Owen, they were free to do so outside of the bounds of Patreon (including, but not limited to direct donations, Paypal transactions, or Stipe payments), forgoing the controls and protections Patreon offers to patrons. The followers chose not to do so, ergo, it's clear that they did not intend to contract with Owens directly.