Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


Issue Is sam liable to pam for slander?

Rule: Defamation is injury to a person’s good name or reputation A defamatory

communication is defined in the restatement of torts as one that so tends to harm the
reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third
persons from associating or dealing with him/her.

 The statement has to false

 The statement has to be published to a third party
 The person defamed/slandered has to be alive
 The statement must have a refrence to a particular person or anything that aims at a
particular person

Application: Sam falsely communicated information orally about pam to andy (a third
party). This information has caused the third party (Andy) to stop associating and dealing
with pam and caused pam economic harm. As well as lowed her estimation to andy and his
staff. Pam can prove that sam slandering her resulted in her damages as andy stopped
dealing with her.

Conclusion: Sam is liable to pam for slander.


Issue: Is Sam liable to Pam for intentional interference with economic relations?

Rule: Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual

relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages
someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic
harm. It has to establish the following elements:

 There was a contract between the plaintiff and the third party
 The defendant knew of the contract
 The defendant improperly induced the third party to breach the contract or made
performance of the contract impossible
 There was injury to the plaintiff

Application: Sam intentionally interfered with Pam and Brent’s contractual relations and
intentionally severed it causing pam economic harm. Sam knew prior to approaching pam
about the contract present between them. He improperly induced brentt to breach the
contract by telling him that he can give him a better offer at marks firm, pams biggest
competitor. This action caused pam to lose a 3 year contract with brentt causing her
economic harm and injury.

Conclusion Sam is liable to pam for International interference with economic relations.

Issue: is sam liable to pam for trespass?

Rule: trespass in an unlawful intrusion or invasion upon a property, it also is putting

something on someone’s property and refusing to remove it and has to meet the following

 Intent of intrusion
 Forcefully entering

Application: pam found sam lurking in her front yard uninvited, and unlawfully. Sam knew he
was trespassing on her property and refused to leave when pam asked him to.

Conclusion: sam is liable to pam for trespass.


Issue: Is pam liable to Sam for assault?

Rule: an act done by one person which causes, and is intended to cause, to an apprehension
of an immediate and harmful or offensive touching or contact with his person is an assult

 The threat of immediate or offensive contact

 Any act that would arouse reasonable apprehension of imminent harm

Application Although pam raising her bat to hit sam meets the elements of assult as it was a
threat of immediate or offensive contact as well as the apprehension of imminent harm.
Sam was trespassing unlawfully on her property, after which he refused to leave when pam
asked him to. Thus her assault to sam qualifies as self-defence

Conclusion: Pam is not liable to pam for assault