What are the traditional elements of the tort

TQ 8.1

Paper details

Please follow each question….

 

TQ 8.1: What are the traditional elements of the tort of inducing a breach of contract, as identified in the Hannigan decision? Were those elements met in Hannigan? Why or why not?

 

TQ 8.2: What are the elements of a product disparagement/trade libel claim? In what way is proving a product disparagement claim different from proving a defamation claim? What did the growers in Auvil assert – i.e. what was at issue in the case? What did the court decide and what did the court say was the risk or uncertainty that would result if it had held differently?

 

TQ 8.3: Explain and compare the English Rule and the American rule regarding negligent misrepresentation, discussed in International Products Co. v. Erie R.R. What theory did the court eliminate in this case?

TQ 8.4: According to the court in Formosa Plastics, what must a plaintiff prove to win a fraudulent misrepresentation claim? What is the most significant difference between Formosa Plastics and International Products with regard to the proof required?

TQ 8.5: What is the modern view of the law of unfair competition, as explained by the court in Metropolitan Opera v. Wagner-Nichols? What conduct did the court find constituted unfair competition? In what ways was the plaintiff harmed by that conduct?

Please use these via internet

• Hannigan v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

• Auvil v. CBS “60 Minutes”

• International Products Co. v. Erie R.R. Co.

• Formosa Plastics Corporation USA v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors

• Metropolitan Opera Ass’n v. Wagner-Nichols Recorder Corp.

 

Follow this link to get a similar paper written from scratch
We guarantee that the paper will be delivered within the specified deadline. We also have a personalized customer support and you will be able to communicate with your writer throughout the order preparation process. Thank you for choosing us.