| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Tortious interference ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Tortious interference
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract). There is also a tort of negligent such interference.
== Description ==
Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised. The classic example of this tort occurs when one party induces another party to breach a contract with a third party, in circumstances where the first party has no privilege to act as it does and acts with knowledge of the existence of the contract. Such conduct is termed tortious inducement of breach of contract.
Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage.
In either of the above situations, the tortfeasor's conduct typically is intentional. There have been assertions that there is no cause of action for merely ''negligent'' interference with the performance of a contract or with prospective business advantage.〔See ''Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint'', 175 U.S. 303 (1927) (lost profits held remote damage); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766C (1979). See also ''Venhaus v. Shultz'', 155 Cal. App. 4th 1072, 1079—1080, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 432 (2007) ("()e have been directed to no California authority, and have found none, for the trial court’s conclusion that the wrongful conduct must be intentional or willful. The defendant’s conduct must ‘fall outside the boundaries of fair competition’. . . . but negligent misconduct or the violation of a statutory obligation suffice.") (internal citations omitted.).〕 That statement is incorrect, however, for some jurisdictions recognize such claims〔See ''Union Oil Co. v. Oppen'', 501 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding negligent interference with prospective advantage actionable when risk of harm was foreseeable); ''In re Kinsman Transit Co.'', 388 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968) (dictum: stating that negligent interference with contract should receive same legal treatment as other negligent acts); ''J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory'', 24 Cal. 3d 799, 804, 157 Cal. Rptr. 407, 598 P.2d 60 (1979) (“Where a special relationship exists between the parties, a plaintiff may recover for loss of expected economic advantage through the ''negligent'' performance of a contract although the parties were not in contractual privity.”) (emphasis supplied); ''Settimo Associates v. Environ Systems, Inc.'', 14 Cal. App. 4th 842, 845, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 757 (1993) (“The tort of intentional ''or negligent'' interference with prospective economic advantage imposes liability for improper methods of disrupting or diverting the business relationship of another which fall outside the boundaries of fair competition.”) (emphasis supplied) (internal citation omitted). There formerly was California authority that no cause of action exists for negligent interference with contractual relations. See ''Fifield Manor v. Finston'', 54 Cal. 2d 632, 636—637, 7 Cal. Rptr. 377, 354 P.2d 1073 (1960). But the ''J'Aire'' decision, ''supra'', appears to have overruled ''Fifield''. Nevertheless, however illogical it may seem, it is arguable that California does not recognize a tort of negligent interference with contractual relations, but does recognize a tort of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. See (''Young v. Fluorotronics'' ), S.D. Calif. 2010). (This is comparable to recognizing manslaughter but decriminalizing murder.)〕 although many do not.〔See, e.g., ''Ramirez v. Selles'', 784 P.2d 433, 436 (Or. 1989) ("Negligent injury to one person that harms another's contract or other economic relationship is not a tort, at least not unless some duty of defendant outside negligence law itself protects the injured interest of the plaintiff against negligent invasion.").〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Tortious interference」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|