State A Claim For Tortious Interference With A Prospective Business Advantage Under Maryland Law Essay

That the elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this contract (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach of disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage. Citing Bauer vs. Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

The case Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. was over if employee at will has a cause of action against her employers. Dr. Pierce refused to continue a project that she viewed it as medically unethical, however the employer continued with project and suggest for her to work on other project. In this case there are 3 key stakeholders Dr. Pierce, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. and Public (Halbert & Inguli, 2014).

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Negligence Per Se: Violation of a standard of care set by statute. Example: injuring a

Because the Contractor Defendants either could not be located or have ceased doing business, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims against those defendants with prejudice.   Accordingly, plaintiffs now seek damages only from the Liberty Defendants.

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held that Whirlpool’s non-compete provision “extends far beyond Whirlpools’s “reasonable competitive business interests.””Whirlpool Corp v. Burns, 457 F. Supp. 2d 806 (W.D. Mich. 2006) Whirlpool did not shown that its claim is enforceable, as it pertains to Burns. Id. The court reasoned this way because there was no evidence that “Burns has disclosed or is likely to disclose any information subject to the confidentiality provision.” Id. Additionally, there is no evidence that the salesman had obtained credible information that would help his employment at Electrolux. Id. Whirlpool had not shown that it faced a real threat of “irreparable harm if not granted injunction.” Id. However Burns could be substantially harmed because he would not be able to find employment using the general knowledge he gained in the past years in home appliances, potentially causing him financial burden. Id. Therefore the court found enforcement of the non-compete covenant unreasonable.

On this film it is showcased through several different cases how the tort reform has impacted individuals’ constitutional and civil rights. It also showcases how large companies and political leaders have used their power for their own purposes as well as to push legislature to pass through the White House and become law by financing their campaigns and helping the candidates to win elections. One of those laws was the caps on punitive damages through tort reform.

FindLaw Inc. (November 1, 1999). Business Torts: Misrepresentation, Interference and Unfair Competition. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/11/15387.html

This court case involved the plaintiff Hamptons Landscaping Service Inc., who had been represented by Lieb at Law, P.C. This side of the case then was seeking summary judgment to recover $17,217.00, from the defendants Michael & Frances Sherman who had been represented by Kelly and Hulme, P.C. which was alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action. The Sherman’s had crossed moved seeking an order dismissing Hampton's complaint, also had asserting that Second

21. The malicious and negligent conduct of Piper Reed was reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, harm to physical well-being and invasion of personal space and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages.

While not a defence to the action, the Court may grant a motion to strike or stay an action on the grounds that it was champertous if the champerty resulted in an abuse of process. For example, in Operation 1 Inc. v. Phillips the third-party financier purchased the plaintiff’s corporation with a plan to revive the corporation in order to pursue a claim against the defendants. The third party made the purchase in exchange for a share of the proceeds from the litigation. The court found that the third party was a stranger to the event giving rise to the action and without the third party’s assistance, the plaintiff would not have launched the action. Therefore, the agreement was tainted by champerty and the action was

Remember: Intentional torts is when a person acts with intent of injuring a person his property or both.

Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.