This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Focus (Forum & Focus)

Mar. 19, 2008

Mulling Motive

Focus Column - By Hayward J. Kaiser and Richard B. Sheldon - The courts should clarify the muddled case law involving privilege in breach of contract cases.

FOCUS COLUMN

By Hayward J. Kaiser and Richard B. Sheldon
This article appears on Page 7.

      Inducing breach of contract is not a strict liability tort. The California Supreme Court has long recognized that even, if a plaintiff proves all the elements, including a defendant's intent to induce a breach, a defendant can avoid liability by proving that his inducement was "justified." Imperial Ice Co. v. Rossier, 18 C...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up