Intentional Torts Notes

Intentional Torts

Torts Overview

The purpose of Tort law is to:

  • Redress wrongs.
  • Legally recognize the rights of those who have suffered from the wrongful acts of another.
  • Provide compensation/remedies to those who have suffered a loss or injury due to another person’s wrongful act.

Classification of Torts

Torts are classified into three main categories:

  • Intentional Torts: Based on the defendant’s intent.
  • Unintentional Torts (Negligence): Resulting from a breach of a duty to act reasonably.
  • Strict Liability: Liability attaches without any breach of duty or intent.

Intentional Torts

Intentional torts involve:

  • Action by the defendant.
  • Intention.
  • Cause.
  • Harm to the plaintiff.

Comparison: Negligence

Elements of negligence include:

  • Duty of care.
  • Breach of duty.
  • Causation.
  • Harm.

Comparison: Strict Liability (Products Liability)

Elements of strict liability in product liability cases include:

  • The product was defective or unreasonably dangerous.
  • The defect existed when it left the control of the manufacturer or seller.
  • The defective condition caused the injury.

Intent

Intent in intentional torts involves:

  • Desired intent of consequences, or
  • Substantial certainty of consequences.

There is an assumption that individuals intend the normal consequences of their actions.

  • Example: Forcefully pushing someone, even in jest, is an intentional tort if there is an injury because the normal consequence of pushing someone is that they will fall or lose their balance.
  • Harmful motive is not necessary.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Elements of fraudulent misrepresentation include:

  • False statement/representation.
  • Knowledge that the representation is false.
  • Intention to induce the victim to act in reliance on the statement.
  • The victim relies on the statement.
  • Actual harm because of the reliance on the false statement.

Bernie Madoff Example

Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme as an example of fraudulent misrepresentation:

  • False statement or representation: Use of a "split-strike" investment strategy (complex and conservative in theory).
  • Knowledge that the statement is false: Bernie knew he was running a Ponzi scheme.
  • Intention to induce the victim to act in reliance on the statement: Statements made with the intention to induce investors to give him money.
  • Causes the victim to rely on the statement: Investors relied on his statements and "invested" their money.
  • Actual harm because of the reliance on the false statement: Investors lost their money.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation vs. Puffery

  • Fraud requires factual representations.
  • Puffery involves statements involving vague generalizations that lack factual basis.

Examples of Puffery

  • “Best in the market”
  • “Most comfortable…”
  • “Best product for the job”
  • “You’ll never go back to other brands”

Revell v. Guido Case

Issue: Did the facts of the case and the plaintiff’s proof meet all the requirements for establishing fraudulent misrepresentation?

Rule: Fraudulent misrepresentation requires:

  • False statement/representation
  • Knowledge that the representation is false
  • Intention to induce the victim to act in reliance of the statement
  • Causes the victim to rely on the statement
  • Actual harm because of the reliance on the false statement

Revell v. Guido Analysis

Application of the facts to satisfy the elements:

  • False statement/representation: Septic system is totally new.
  • Knowledge that the representation is false: The system was partially replaced - not fully replaced.
  • Intention to induce the victim to act in reliance of the statement: Intent that the plaintiffs rely on the statements in connection with purchasing the property.
  • Causes the victim to rely on the statement: The plaintiffs relied on the statement and waived the inspection.
  • Actual harm because of the reliance on the false statement: The septic system failed, and the plaintiffs had to pay for a new system.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Instead of the defendant making a knowing statement, the defendant makes a statement without exercising due care.

  • Example: In connection with the sale of property, the plaintiff buyer asks about the property’s heating and cooling systems. The realtor, without verifying the information, responds that the property has a brand-new heating system. In fact, the heating system is almost 20 years old and will need to be replaced soon.
  • This scenario is an example of negligent misrepresentation rather than fraudulent misrepresentation because the realtor did not know the statement was false.

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

Elements include:

  • Existence of a valid contract.
  • Defendant has knowledge of the contract.
  • Defendant intends to disrupt the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the other party.
  • Defendant’s actions do in fact disrupt the contractual relationship.
  • Causing economic harm to the plaintiff.

Example: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

Wellesley Cupcake has a contract to provide 100 cupcakes every Friday to Babson Brew (a local coffee shop) for six months. Babson Brew signs an exclusive contract - meaning they cannot buy baked goods from another supplier during that time.

A competing bakery, Newtown Cupcakes, finds out about the contract. Wanting to steal the account, the owner of Newtown Cupcakes, tells Babson Brew that Wellesley Cupcake is using expired ingredients (This is false!), and that the health department is about to shut them down (…also false).

Fearing for their reputation, Babson Brew cancels the contract with Wellesley Cupcake early and switches to Newtown Cupcakes.

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations vs. Fair Business Competition

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

  • Involves an existing, enforceable contract between the plaintiff and customer.
  • The defendant knows about the contract.
  • The defendant intentionally causes the customer to breach or disrupt the contract.
  • Improper means are usually involved - such as lies, threats, or coercion.
  • The purpose of the defendant’s actions is to induce the third party to breach the contract, not just win the business.
  • Example: A competitor lies to your client about your company’s performance to get them to break their contract early.

Fair Business Competition

  • Typically involves competing for future business rather than disrupting a current contract.
  • Trying to outbid or outperform a competitor for business is fine so long as no wrongful acts are involved.
  • Soliciting business once a contract ends is fine.
  • Example: Offering a better price or better product to a customer who's currently under no contractual obligation with a competitor.

Key Elements: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

  • There is a valid contract between the plaintiff and the customer.
  • The defendant knows about the existence of the contract and intends to induce the customer to breach the contract.

Commercial Disparagement

Elements include:

  • Publication of a false statement.
  • False statement aimed at the plaintiff’s business - products or services.
  • Defendant published the statement with knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
  • Publication of the false statement causes damage to the plaintiff.

Silvestri-Edwards v. Cappellos (2025)

Facts:

  • 518 Foodies is a Facebook group founded by Silvestri and has over 56,000 members, serving as a platform for discussion about dining experiences.
  • In November 2024, a negative comment about the Capellos’ restaurant was posted in the group’s Facebook page. The Capellos demanded the removal of the disparaging comment. When Silvestri declined to take down the comment, tension escalated.
  • In retaliation, the Capellos made false and disparaging statements about Silvestri and her business, including false allegations of financial instability and poor business practices.
  • The statements were disseminated through various channels on the internet, leading to a decline in Silvestri’s marketing business revenue.

Silvestri-Edwards v. Cappellos (2025) - Continued

  • In March 2025, the judge presiding over the case denied the defendants’ (Capellos’) motion to dismiss, indicating that Silvestri's initial claims had a sufficient legal basis to proceed.
  • The court found that the statements made by the Capellos could be actionable under the law.

IRAC Analysis: Commercial Disparagement

Did the Capellos commit Commercial Disparagement?

  • Publication of a false statement: What was the false statement?
  • False statement aimed at the plaintiff’s business - products or services: What did the Capellos say about Silvestri’s business?
  • Defendant published the statement with knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity: This is a question of fact. Is the statement false?
  • Publication of the false statement causes damage to the plaintiff: When it comes to business reputation, the damages are assumed.

Conversion

Elements include:

  • Intentional interference with the personal property of another.
  • Plaintiff has legal possession of property.
  • Defendant intentionally interferes with the plaintiff's property.
  • Interference disrupts or deprives the plaintiff of the use of the property – can be permanent or temporary.
  • The defendant's interference injures the plaintiff.

Damages

  • Nominal: The plaintiff has not suffered monetary damages, but is bringing legal action to as a way to acknowledge legal rights.
  • Compensatory: Intended to compensate the plaintiff for personal injuries, damage to property, or other economic losses (lost wages, etc.).
    • Actual (pecuniary).
    • General (non-pecuniary) – emotional damages such as pain and suffering; can be difficult to measure and prove.
  • Punitive: Intended to punish the plaintiff in egregious cases and to deter future similar conduct.

X Corp. (formerly Twitter) v. Media Matters

  • Interference with contracts.
  • Business disparagement.
  • Interference with prospective economic advantage.

Facts:

  • X Corp claims that Media Matters published reports falsely suggesting that advertisements were appearing alongside controversial content, leading advertisers to withdraw their business.

IRAC: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

  • Existence of a valid contract
  • Defendant has knowledge of the contract
  • Defendant intends to disrupt the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the other party
  • Defendant’s action do in fact disrupt the contractual relationship
  • Causing economic harm to the plaintiff