15 ms·

Here, I’ll give you this one for free: it’s called tortious interference. As the name suggests, it’s a tort, so you don’t need to sign a contact to be liable.

tptacek 1y ago
There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, (2) knowledge by the defendants of it, (3) intentional and unjustified inducements by the defendants to break it, followed by (4) an actual breach that (5) caused damages. Doesn't seem like that would fit here. This seems like more of an ethical dilemma than a legal one.
- Retric 1y ago
  > There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, Your (1) is false. You can damage a business relationship that doesn’t involve a signed contract. “Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor intentionally acts to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
  - tptacek 1y ago
    OK, but the interference still needs to be improper!
    - Retric 1y ago
      Agreed, though I’m not sure if it would be considered proper or improper here.
  - do_not_redeem 1y ago
    They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. They're just doing something they would have done anyway. You can't claim tortious interference just because someone throws a wrench in your business plans. Sanborn has about as much of a case as Microsoft has against Linus Torvalds for creating Linux and hurting their sales of Windows. (I'll give you this one for free: none.)
    - Retric 1y ago
      > They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. That’s arguable. They sent him an email concerned about the harm of disclosure with the upcoming auction. They then apparently got offended by the offer of money to sign an NDA which calls their future motives into question as they now had a beef with the guy. Saying the actions themselves were not improper is also a defense, and could be perfectly viable even if they had beef with the guy.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        "To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession." They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!
        Retric 1y ago
        It was claimed they committed copyright infringement and they admit to photographing his works as part of this discovery. It actually being copyright infringement is questionable, but if so it would be improper behavior.
        tptacek 1y ago
        Yep! That'd be a real claim. I hadn't seen that earlier.
        maratc 1y ago
        NAL but in copyright it’s not making a copy that’s problematic, it’s making that copy available to others. Anyone can take a picture of Mickey Mouse; one only has a problem when they start to sell it. This cryptography solution is more akin to mathematics. And mathematics isn’t covered by the copyright law.
        Retric 1y ago
  - gamblor956 1y ago
    That's not a tort in American law. In this country contractual arrangement is required for tortious interference.
    - Retric 1y ago
      There was a contract between the auction house and the artist. However that’s not strictly required: “Wrongful interference in a business relationship occurs when there is no contract. The defendant attempts to disrupt the relationship, causing economic harm. If the defendant defames the business owner’s product, resulting in loss of business, that is tortious interference in the business.” https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/liability-and-insurance/tortious-interference.html https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/liability-and-insuranc...
      - gamblor956 1y ago
        Your cite is about interference of contract... interference of business relationship is not an American tort.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

tptacek 1y ago

There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, (2) knowledge by the defendants of it, (3) intentional and unjustified inducements by the defendants to break it, followed by (4) an actual breach that (5) caused damages. Doesn't seem like that would fit here. This seems like more of an ethical dilemma than a legal one.

Retric 1y ago
> There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, Your (1) is false. You can damage a business relationship that doesn’t involve a signed contract. “Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor intentionally acts to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
- tptacek 1y ago
  OK, but the interference still needs to be improper!
  - Retric 1y ago
    Agreed, though I’m not sure if it would be considered proper or improper here.
- do_not_redeem 1y ago
  They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. They're just doing something they would have done anyway. You can't claim tortious interference just because someone throws a wrench in your business plans. Sanborn has about as much of a case as Microsoft has against Linus Torvalds for creating Linux and hurting their sales of Windows. (I'll give you this one for free: none.)
  - Retric 1y ago
    > They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. That’s arguable. They sent him an email concerned about the harm of disclosure with the upcoming auction. They then apparently got offended by the offer of money to sign an NDA which calls their future motives into question as they now had a beef with the guy. Saying the actions themselves were not improper is also a defense, and could be perfectly viable even if they had beef with the guy.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      "To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession." They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!
      - Retric 1y ago
        It was claimed they committed copyright infringement and they admit to photographing his works as part of this discovery. It actually being copyright infringement is questionable, but if so it would be improper behavior.
        tptacek 1y ago
        Yep! That'd be a real claim. I hadn't seen that earlier.
        maratc 1y ago
        NAL but in copyright it’s not making a copy that’s problematic, it’s making that copy available to others. Anyone can take a picture of Mickey Mouse; one only has a problem when they start to sell it. This cryptography solution is more akin to mathematics. And mathematics isn’t covered by the copyright law.
        Retric 1y ago
- gamblor956 1y ago
  That's not a tort in American law. In this country contractual arrangement is required for tortious interference.
  - Retric 1y ago
    There was a contract between the auction house and the artist. However that’s not strictly required: “Wrongful interference in a business relationship occurs when there is no contract. The defendant attempts to disrupt the relationship, causing economic harm. If the defendant defames the business owner’s product, resulting in loss of business, that is tortious interference in the business.” https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/liability-and-insurance/tortious-interference.html https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/liability-and-insuranc...
    - gamblor956 1y ago
      Your cite is about interference of contract... interference of business relationship is not an American tort.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]