The factor should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed.
For better understanding let's explain what tort interference means
- There are two types of tortious interference
- Tortious interference with contract
- Tortious interference with good economic advantage.
- Tort interference is regarded as an issue where one party was involved in something or does a thing to intentionally disregard another party’s business transactions or project
From the above we can therefore say that the answer the factors should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that:
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed is correct
Learn more Tort interference from:
brainly.com/question/15058912
Answer:
24 girls 30 boys
Explanation:
You would need to divide the total number of students by 9 which would give you the value of six (54/9=6). Multiply the values in the ratio by six to get the actual breakdown of girls to boys. Since the ratio is 4 girls to 5 boys (based on the order of the sentence), there would be 24 girls and 30 boys in the class.
Answer:
A. Voters who were college graduates were more likely to support Clinton than Trump.
E. High income voters making over 100k were divided in their support for Clinton and Trump.
Explanation:
edge
Answer:
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Explanation:
The 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a court ruling between the Cherokee Nation, the petitioners, against the state of Georgia, the respondent.
In this court case, the Cherokees filed a complaint against the State of Georgia, asking if the state has any jurisdiction to impose laws on the Nation. This was because the state has promised Cherokee lands to Georgian settlers if they settle in the state. The court decided that since the Cherokees are a dependent nation, it cannot make any decision as it has no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, this means that the Cherokee Nation cannot have any legal recourse to stop the state from taking their lands. This case was then followed up by the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling where the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee people.
Thus, the correct answer is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
