Page 49 Flashcards
Professionals are always liable for negligently prepared what?
Reports or documents
What is the split for how far liability goes for professionals being responsible for negligently prepared documents or reports?
- traditional view: not liable unless there is privity
- modern view: D must know the third-party was intending to rely
What is liability limited to for actual reliance for negligent misrepresentation?
People the defendant would reasonably know to rely on the statement
Who are the people that would be considered in relation to proximate cause for negligent misrepresentation?
Defendant is only liable to the person the representation was made to and any other specific people he knew would rely
What is the rule for damages for negligent misrepresentation?
Same as misrepresentation with benefit of the bargain rule and out of pocket loss rule
What is considered in the benefit of the bargain rule for damages for misrepresentation?
Value of the property as contracted for minus the value it actually was
What is the simple way of saying the out-of-pocket loss rule for damages for misrepresentation?
Price paid minus value received
Can you recover emotional distress for negligent misrepresentation?
Yes, if it is a natural and proximate consequence of misrepresentation
What is intentional interference with contract?
Recovery is given when defendant intentionally causes a third person to breach an existing enforceable contract with the plaintiff
If a defendant is unaware of the contractual relationship, can he be guilty of intentional interference with contract?
No
If an opera singer is induced to breach her contract with an opera house by you because you own a different opera house, what are you liable for?
Intentional interference with contract
Intentional interference with contract only applies to what party?
Inter-meddling one, not the one that was actually involved in the contract
If someone interferes with an illegal or against public policy contract, can they be guilty of intentional interference with contract?
No
What does the plaintiff have to prove for intentional interference with contract?
That the defendant’s interference was improper
What can justify intentional interference with contract?
- fair and ethical competition
- protecting your own financial interests
- interfering with an illegal or against public policy contract
Are you allowed to encourage someone to buy your product instead of the competition’s and not be liable for intentional interference with contract?
Yes, because that would be fair and ethical competition
Are you allowed to wrongly accuse your competition of putting something gross in their product so that you can win business?
No, that would be intentional interference with contract
When are you allowed to act in your own financial interest and not be liable for intentional interference with contract?
As long as the breach-inducing activity has a justifiable purpose and you used justifiable methods
Are you guilty of intentional interference with contract if you were protecting the interests of others or the public at large?
No
Insurance companies acting in bad faith and refusing to pay legitimate claims are liable for what?
Tortious breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing
What are the elements of intentional interference with contract?
- valid contract between P and third-party
- D knew about the contract
- D intended to interfere
- D caused the interference
- damages to P
What contracts are protected from intentional interference with contract?
Any contract is protected unless it is illegal
Can you get recovery for intentional interference with contract even if the contract was unenforceable because of lack of consideration, mutuality, terms, SOF, unconscionability, or failure of a condition precedent?
Under the majority view, yes because it is the relationship being interfered with, not the particular contract
What must the defendant know about the contact in order to be guilty of intentional interference with contract?
He must know facts from which he could’ve concluded there was a valid contract