3 ms·
Sam is in dangerous territory here. IANAL, but I think he may be close to being accused of Tortious Interference[1] I noticed this in the initial response of w
by notlisted 13y ago
Sam is in dangerous territory here. IANAL, but I think he may be close to being accused of Tortious Interference[1]
I noticed this in the initial response of websmart's owner that I've seen before in legal docs.
"I do not appreciate you taking the liberty of contacting my clients directly [...] you have no right or authority here. You could very well damage my business with this. If that happens you will be hearing from our lawyer."
This line in Sam's last email is especially dangerous (stating things he doesn't know and something which can be perceived as "soliciting for business"):
"This is a serious security defect. It is easy to fix, but Websmart has made it clear that they have no intention of fixing it. [...] If you have questions, or would like help fixing your website, feel free to contact me."
isn't very smart to say the least.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
- nknighthb 13y agoTruthful warnings to people who are in danger is not tortious interference.
- throwaway2048 13y agobeing 100% correct and legally in the right is no defense against years of lawsuits
- nknighthb 13y agoIf the law doesn't matter, then don't bring it up. Under your logic, you can replace "tortious interference" with "turnip testicles" and this discussion is equally meaningful.
- tedunangst 13y agoUnlike a complaint naming turnip testicles, one that says tortious interference is less likely to get kicked by the judge in four seconds. Skating ->this<- close to the legal edge is definitely something worth bringing up.
- nknighthb 13y agoAnd I could sue you for libel and have it last more than four seconds, too. You're skating awfully close to the legal edge! No, actually, you're not, any more than Sam is. This isn't a close call.