WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? 1. Assume that in the relevant jurisdiction, c
ID: 397652 • Letter: W
Question
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? 1. Assume that in the relevant jurisdiction, contracts with clauses restricting working for competitors for more than six months are deemed illegal and unenforceable. Wrongful interference with a contractual relationship requires the existence of an enforceable contract, third party knowledge and I intentional inducement Show All Feedback 2. Given these facts, the element of the existence of a vallid contractis missing from wrongful interference with a contractual relationship exist. Show All Feedback 3. Given these facts, St. Jude likely is not liable for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship. Show All FeedbackExplanation / Answer
1. Yes, wrongful interference with a contractual relationship does require the existence of:
a. Enforceable contract which stipulates the requirement of bindings and regulations to be followed on part of both the parties
b. Third party knowledge is a must so that someone apart from both the parties is abrest about the contract and its legal bindings in case any party violates the contract
c. Intentional inducement because any party with the intention of breaking the contract will most likely do it after knowing the legal consequences of such a wrongdul act
2. The existence of valid contract is missing when either party breaks the contract because the terms of the contract have been breached and the contract remains null and void after it has been breached and contractual relationship broken.
3. Yes, St. Jude is not liable for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship given these facts.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.