Precise Engineering Corporation has a contract with Quik Mart Stores to provide customized software for Quik’s inventory control system. Retail Outlets, Inc, Quik’s competitor, induces Sam, a Precise subcontractor who is writing code for the Quik software, to delay delivery of the code for one week. As a result, Precise’s delivery of the software is delayed, and Quik sustains $500,000 in lost profits.
Whether Retail Outlets willfully interfered with a contractual relationship with
Engineering Corporation and Quik Mart Stores; when he wrongfully induced Sam
to delay delivery.
Wrongful Interference With a Contractual Relationship occurs when, defendant
Knew of contract; defendant intentionally induces breach; and defendant benefits from breach of contract.
Retail Outlet had to know of contract, because he induced Sam to breach such.
Retail Outlet induced Sam to breach contract agreement with Quik Mart Stores.
Retail Outlet benefited when Quik Mart Stores lost $500,000.00 in sales.
Yes, Retail Outlets willfully interfered with a contractual relationship with
Engineering Corporation and Quik Mart Stores; when he wrongfully induced Samto delay delivery.
A woman name Elle is stuck and injured by a truck as she is walking alongside a road. This incident took place in here home state of Georgia. The truck who struck her was owned and operated by FDC a company that is incorporated in Delaware. Due the circumstances of this case Elle has couple of options in regards to filing a laws suit for damages. Elle’s first option would be to file a law suit in her home state of Georgia, because this is where the incident occurred. Due to the Long Arm Statues; Georgia has the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over FDC, regardless that they do not reside in Georgia. This option would be much more convenient for the plaintiff. Also, Elle has the option of filing the lawsuit in FDC’s state of incorporation. The statute of Long Arms also applies to this scenario and allows the case to be heard in the plaintiff’s home state. This option would not be convenient for the plaintiff, because she would have to drive to Delaware to file the petition and to attend any court hearings and such. In the event that the plaintiff filed the case in Georgia, the defendant has the right to petition for a removal of the case from the state court and h it transferred to a federal court. The plaintiff can request such, because the case involves a diversity of citizenship between the two parties and the injuries that resulted were greater than $250,000. These two facts meet the basic requirements making this case eligible to be heard by a federal court. This might be a considerable option for the defendant if he is worried about prejudice in court towards his case. The plaintiff Elle is more likely to pursue the first option and file her case in Georgia. Besides this being more convenient for her, in addition, her case might be favored more in court because she is a local resident of the jurisdiction.