On May 6, 9:40am, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
}
} > On May 5, 6:49pm, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
} > }
} > } Alice signs a contract with Bob in which Bob agrees to paint Alice's
} > } house for $100.
} >
} > I'm curious: Anyone know of case law in which the rest of Phillip's
} > example stands as is, but the contract Alice signs with Bob is to post
} > billboards on Jim's wall without Jim's permission?
} >
} > That is, if the contract isn't legal to begin with, can Bob still be
} > sued for breach?
}
} You are attempting to turn 'collateral damage' to direct
No, I'm attempting to get an answer to a question.
} ignoring the fact that what is objectionable and I contend, actionable
} is the deliberate harm cased to third parties.
}
} The correct analogy would be that Carol signs a contract with Bob
} to post billboards on Jim's wall.
Should I interpret this to mean that you postulate two contracts with
Bob, and that the reason Mallet is threatening not to do business with
Alice is because he knows about the contract with Carol?
So a blacklist is like somebody publishing the details of Bob's contract
with Carol, in order to induce Mallet to refuse to do business wth Alice?
Let's change the analogy slightly so Mallet is threatening to organize a
boycott of Alice because of Bob, rather than simply threating not to do
business with Alice. That makes Mallet the blacklist operator, rather
than merely a participant in the boycott.
To escape from the world of analogies, let's say that Bob is an ISP with
whom both Alice and Carol have service contracts. Harvey is a user of
Mallet's blacklist, and Harvey has no contract with Bob (he uses another
ISP). What terms of Alice's contract with Bob state that Harvey must
accept Alice's mail? Regardless of Carol and Jim, how can Bob legally
claim that he can require Harvey to accept mail from Alice?
And if Bob cannot legally claim that, so such a contract is not valid,
then can Mallet still be guilty of interfering with it? (Note, NOT "can
Mallet still be sued for interfering".)
} The legality of Carol's contract with Bob might affect Carol's claim
} against Mallet but it does not affect Alice's claim against Mallet.
Agreed, but what I'm interested in is still the terms of Alice's contract.
Incidentally, I'm not a fan of "collateral damage" either. I'm just
trying to understand the niceties of your analogy.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg