Ch. 19: Business Torts

commercial disparagement

: a tort involving the publication of a false statement about a business's products or services Victim must prove 5 elements: The wrongdoer published a false statement that was received by a party other than the victim The false statement was aimed at the victim's products or services (economic interests) The wrongdoer published the statement with knowledge of the statement's falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity (actual malice) Economic impairment of the victim's interests was intended or foreseeable The publication of the false statement resulted in an impairment of the victim's economic interests

fradulent mispresentation

The wrongdoer made a false representation of a past or present fact The wrongdoer had knowledge of the representation's falsity, or made the representation without knowing whether it was true or false The wrongdoer intended to induce the victim to act in reliance on the misrepresentation The wrongdoer's representation caused the victim to rely on the representation The victim suffered pecuniary (money) damages as result of the reliance

Tort

a civil wrong, as opposed to a crime, that occurs when one party (wrongdoer) breaches a legal duty owed to another party (victim), and the victim seeks a remedy, usually in the form of damages

Duty

a legal obligation that one party (individual or entity) owes to another party (individual or entity)

contributory negligence

allows the defendant to show that the victim's conduct contributed to his or her injuries. Unlike comparative negligence that apportions responsibility for an injury between the defendant and the injured party, contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery

conversion

an international tort which occurs when one party intentionally interferes with the personal property of another person To prove a ""claim, the victim must satisfy 4 elements: The victim owns or has a legal right to posses the property in question The wrongdoer intentionally interferes with the victim's property The interference disrupts or deprives the victim of use or possession of the property The wrongdoer's interference causes injury to the victim

business tort

basis for lawsuits which involve impairment of some facet of a person's or an entity's economic interest. Generally cause economic loss rather than bodily harm or property damage

proximate causation

corporations in which the management team operates separately and distinctly from the shareholders, and the company's stock is held by professional investors and the public at large

compensatory damages

damages awarded by a court to compensate individuals for personal injury, property damage, economic loss, or loss of bargain in a breach of contract case

punitive damages

damages awarded on a discretionary basis and designed to punish the defendant in a civil case

general damages

damages designed to compensate parties for injuries that are not easily measured in pecuniary terms, such as pain and suffering or loss of consortium Pain and suffering, mental distress

nominal damages

damages providing plaintiffs with a token monetary award

comparative neglience

defendant's argument that a plaintiff/victim's own conduct contributed to the injuries he or she sustained, with the result that the plaintiff's damages are reduced by the percentage a plaintiff was at fault

tort law

law that protects individuals and entities from 3 types of injuries: Injury to the person Damage to property Impairment of economic interests

damages

monetary awards ordered by courts to victims for injuries caused by wrongdoers or for losses caused by breach of contract

negligence

occurs when one party (wrongdoer) fails to use the standard of care reasonably expected of others in like situations, and the wrongdoer's failure causes injury to another party (victim) to prove must have the following 5 elements: 1. Duty a. Standard of Care b. Reasonable Person 2. Breach of Duty 3. Actual Causation 4. Proximate Causation 5. Damages: monetary awards ordered by courts to victims for injuries caused by wrongdoers or for losses caused by breach of contract

breach of duty

occurs when one party fails to satisfy the standard of care it owes to another party

reasonable person

one who routinely exercises the degree of care called for in a given situation

actual damages

personal injuries or property losses that are susceptible to objective measurements in monetary terms Medical expenses, lost wages

actual causation

relates to the conduct that caused an injury

intentional interference with contractual relations

requires a plaintiff to prove 5 elements: The existence of a valid contract The defendant had knowledge of the contract The defendant intended to disrupt the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and another party The defendant's actions in fact disrupted the contractual relationship The disruption injured the plaintiff, causing an economic impairment

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

requires the plaintiff to prove 5 elements: An economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and another party, with the probability of the relationship developing into a future economic benefit for the plaintiff The defendant had knowledge of the relationship between the plaintiff and the other party An intentional wrongful act by the defendant aimed at disrupting the relationship between the plaintiff and the other party Actual disruption of the relationship between the plaintiff and the other party by the defendant An injury (economic impairment) to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant's wrongful act

defenses

responses by a defendant to legal claims made by a plaintiff in a civil case or charges made by the prosecution in a criminal case

negligent misrepresentation

similar to fraudulent misrepresentation, except the victim is not required to establish that the wrongdoer had knowledge of the false representation

standard of care

the level of care required by law in a particular situation. This concept helps protect individuals and entities from injuries that result from situations involving unreasonable risk of harm

puffery

vague generalizations, where such generalizations are so indefinite that a reasonable person would not view them as factual

assumption of ask

when a victim has knowledge that the defendant's conduct may cause harm, but nonetheless voluntarily chooses to place herself within the sphere of the defendant's conduct