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: Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states). Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).
Explanation:
75, "The operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them." The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan
<em>the incident was reasonably foreseeable.</em>
Answer:
1. we already have laws
2. banning the use of guns is unconstitutional (2nd amendment)
3. it's not the gun itself but the person behind the gun
4. gun control has been proven to be unsuccessful (look at Australia's homicide rates with various weapons)
5. banning or limiting guns restricts our access to protection against other people, corrupt government, etc
Explanation:
for #3, more ppl stop school shootings, mass murders, etc. before they happen, but they never show up on the news bc it's not a good enough story. social media and even the news nowadays is super biased, never shows all of the facts, and exaggerates things, so don't believe everything you see on the internet.
