Nair Law LLC
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Rishi Nair >
      • Representative Experience
      • Publications & Awards
      • Professional & Civic Activities
      • Additional Background
  • Nair Law LLC Blog
  • Press Coverage
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

PROCESSED BEEF MANUFACTURER SUES ABC OVER "PINK SLIME" REPORTS

9/13/2012

0 Comments

 
Business owners need to understand how the law can protect them against competitors and insulate them from customer lawsuits.  To reinforce this lesson, consider Beef Products, Inc., a closely held South Dakota company that faced severe consequences from negative reports regarding their processed beef product.  When businesses are losing money stemming from interference with existing or future business relationships, business should contact a business attorney who can look at all of their options to remedy this threat and mitigate harm, including through litigation.

The Wall Street Journal, among others, is reporting that Beef Products Inc., , has sued ABC for defamation, tortious interference with contract (business relationship), and a state anti-food disparagement statute, among other claims.  The beef company also named Diana Sawyer, who reported on the story for ABC and microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein, who as a USDA food inspector investigating a food bacteria outbreak in 2002 toured a BPI plant and coined the term "pink slime" to describe their product.  BPI is suing these defendants for $1.20 billion, representing lost profits stemming from the alleged defamatory reporting and characterization of their product.
Tortious interference is separated into to two distinct torts in Illinois: interference with contracts and interference with prospective business relationships.  With the limited public information regarding this suit it seems that BPI's suit conflates these two concepts and states damages both as lost contracts and interference with prospective business relationships.  There is some level of speculation in terms of damages for prospective business relationships.  Understanding the legal differences between the two will help a practitioner decide which of the torts to assert in a claim where tortious interference has occurred.

“It is generally recognized in Illinois that the elements of [tortious interference with contract] are: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and another; (2) the defendant’s awareness of this contractual relation; (3) the defendant’s intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach of the contract; (4) a subsequent breach by the other, caused by the defendant’s wrongful conduct; and (5) damages.” HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 145, 154-55, 545 N.E.2d 672, 676 (1989). 

And “[i]t is generally recognized by the Illinois courts that to prevail on a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must prove: (1) his reasonable expectation of entering into a valid business relationship; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s expectancy; (3) purposeful interference by the defendant that prevents the plaintiff’s legitimate expectancy from ripening into a valid business relationship; and (4) damages to the plaintiff resulting from such interference.” Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 483-84, 693 N.E.2d 358, 370 (1998).

The tort of interference with prospective advantage recognizes that a person's business relationships constitute a property interest and as such are entitled to protection from unjustified tampering by another. Belden Corp. v. InterNorth Inc., 90 Ill.App.3d 547, 551, 45 Ill.Dec. 765, 413 N.E.2d 98 (1980).

There are instances where a defendant's conduct is justified or privileged.  Whether described as “justified” or “privileged,” there are many circumstances in which interfering conduct is not actionable.

To determine whether a defendant acted justifiably in the context of a claim of tortious interference with a contract, Illinois uses a balancing test in which contractual rights are weighed against the particular type of interference claimed. The issue is whether the protection of the particular contract at issue merits prohibition of the particular conduct at issue. Interference with a contractual relationship may be justified if the defendant is privileged to engage in the interference.

This brief article is by no means a holistic summary of the law related to tortious interference with contracts or prospective business relationships.  To understand more about how a third party's interference with a contract or a prospective business relationship constitutes a tort, contact a commercial litigation attorney that is familiar with Illinois law and can handle complex commercial litigation. 
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C.

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    Categories

    All
    Accident
    ADA
    Affirmative Defense
    Alienation Of Affection
    Appeal
    Association
    Award
    Bankruptcy
    Breach Of Contract
    Breach Of Warranty
    Cancellation
    Cease And Desist
    Certify
    Choice Of Forum
    Choice Of Law
    Civil Rights
    Civil Rights Act Of 1964
    Class
    Class Action
    Commerce Clause
    Common Carrier
    Common Elements
    Compliance
    Condo
    Condominium
    Constitution
    Constitutional Rights
    Contracts
    Conversion
    Countersue
    Criminal Defense
    Debt
    Debt Collector
    Deep Dish Pizza
    Defamation
    Defense
    Dilution
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Dog Bite
    Driver
    Duty Of Care
    Elements
    Employment
    Employment Litigation
    Expert
    Express Warranty
    Failure To Maintain
    Fall Protection
    FDCPA
    Federal
    Federal Law
    First Amendment
    FOIA
    Forcible Entry And Detainer Act
    Forum Non Conveniens
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Hotel
    Illinois
    Illinois Law
    Implied Warranty
    Infringement
    Injunction
    Insurance
    Intellectual Property
    Intentional Tort
    IP Litigation
    IP Litigation
    Jury
    Jury Verdict
    Lawsuit
    Litigation
    Medical Malpractice
    Negligence
    Negotiate
    Osha
    Personal Injury
    Product Liability
    Property
    Protected Conduct
    Real Estate Landlord Tenant Ordinance
    Real Property
    Reckless
    Retaliation
    RLTO
    Safety
    Second Appellate District
    Section 1983
    Seniority
    Settlement
    Seventh Circuit
    Special
    Speeding
    Sports
    Subrogation
    Tax
    Taxation
    Ticket
    Title VII
    Tort
    Tortious Interference
    Trademark
    Trademark Enforcement
    Trademark Litigation
    Trespass
    Trespass To Chattels
    TTAB
    Uniform Commercial Code
    Unpaid
    Vehicle
    Workplace Accident

    RSS Feed

    Privacy Policy
    Terms of Use
    Disclaimer


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Phil Roeder