How far does liability extend in a civil conspiracy? Acme LLC makes widgets. Bob is a member of Acme. Bob tries to take Acme's widget maker, thinking he can operate the machine himself, but breaks it in the process. Of course Bob has also violated his covenants as a member of Acme. Acme sues Bob and obtains a money judgment against Bob for damages – to the machine, to Acme's business, and for the costs of litigation. But Bob is as poor as he is stupid, so Acme can't collect on the judgment. Acme had a contract with Charlie to supply widgets. In the course of suing Bob, Acme discovers that just prior to Bob's perfidy Charlie had entered an agreement to buy widgets directly from Bob, instead of from Acme. Charlie knew that Bob could only supply widgets by taking the widget maker from Acme. In this scenario it seems like Charlie and Bob have committed some sort of tortious conspiracy. What are the correct legal terms? I think &quot;tortious interference&quot; and/or &quot;tortious inducement,&quot; but not sure. Charlie has plenty of money. In this scenario is Charlie liable for any of the damages that Acme was awarded against Bob? If so, on what common law basis?
How far does liability extend in a civil conspiracy? It extends to joint and several liability insofar as that &quot;is another vital instrument for maximizing deterrence&quot; Paper Systems Inc. v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., 281 F.3d 629, 633 (2002). Charlie's awareness that Bob would have to misappropriate Acme's equipment implies that Charlie was in a position of being able to deter Bob. Accordingly, Charlie's failure to try deterring Bob (let alone notify Acme) also renders Charlie liable to Acme. Similarly, EMI Sun Village, Inc. v. Catledge, 16-11841, (11th Cir. June 2019, unpublished): [T]he law regarding conspiracy [in Florida] is well-settled, and provides that an act done in pursuit of a conspiracy by one conspirator is an act for which each other conspirator is jointly and severally liable. (brackets in original, citing Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So.3d 67, 80 (2013)). But joint and several liability is applicable only in regard to &quot;compensatory damages, [whereas] punitive damages [if available] are assessed separately against each defendant [...] [so as] [t]o ensure compliance with the constitutional demand for fairness&quot;, Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 781 (2019) (brackets added). Ascertaining the sense or direction of one or more claims of tortious interference/inducement involves additional details. For instance, if even prior to agreeing with Charlie Bob had set his mind to taking Acme's equipment, Acme has no viable claim against Charlie for tortious interference/inducement in regard to Bob's relation with Acme. That is because, although unbeknownst to Acme, the relation was essentially broken beforehand. From another angle, if breaking the equipment harms Acme's business with other clients, Acme would have claims for tortious interference in which Bob and Charlie would be jointly and severally liable regardless of Charlie's knowledge of Acme's other relations. Likewise, Acme has a viable claim of civil conspiracy pursuant to the harm Bob caused to Acme's property.
No The general common law rule is that a lawsuit requires an actual dispute. This is a contrived dispute with no real-world relevance. With apparent (or even actual) authority to act on behalf of A, you assisted B with making copies. The moment you contrived this scheme and set it into motion, you consented on behalf of A to allow B to use the materials. It is like paying someone to slip and &quot;fall&quot; on your sidewalk so they can sue you. There is no actual dispute, and volunti fit non injuria.
They are merely telling you what the law is There is a tort called interference with contractual relations: The question strikes at the heart of our economic and legal system both of which are based upon principles of freedom of contract and freedom of choice. However, parties that freely enter contracts cannot freely breach such contracts and Courts have shown that they are prepared in some cases to provide relief against unlawful interferences with contractual relations. If A (the vendor) has contracted with B (the realtor) it is unlawful for a third-party (you) to induce A to breach their contract. If you were to approach A and they then broke their contract with B, B could sue A for breach of contract and you for interference in contractual relations. Anti-competition law is directed at ensuring there is a free and fair market for goods and services but once two parties have willingly entered a contract, they are no longer participating in the market. Now, if A approaches you, that's on A and hence why the answer o both questions is c.
united-states The argument you are making, restated in legal terms, is roughly as follows: Users have a duty to not reuse passwords. When a user reuses a password, and their password is subsequently stolen and used to fraudulently access the plaintiff's system, that password reuse becomes the proximate cause of the plaintiff's business injury. Therefore, our storage of plaintext passwords cannot be the proximate cause, and so we cannot be liable. This argument is mostly wrong. Leaving aside the fact that you're going to have a tough time convincing a jury of #1, a tort may have more than one proximate cause. Both the password reuse and the plaintext storage were but-for causes of the injury (i.e. if either had not happened, then the injury would not have happened). The injury was foreseeable, because it is well known in the security industry that many users in fact do reuse their passwords, professional advice notwithstanding. In most US states, that's enough to establish proximate cause. In the minority of states using the &quot;direct causation&quot; test, you might be able to characterize the user's password reuse as an intervening cause, and thereby avoid liability. However, there are other elements of tort law which must be established aside from proximate cause, and so by itself this does not resolve the question of liability. Other defenses might be applicable; for example, the terms of service might contain an indemnification agreement, which (if upheld) would make the user(s) responsible. The defendant might also argue that there is no duty of care, that it was not breached, or that the injury was or should have been de minimis (i.e. that the plaintiff should have taken greater care to prevent damages arising from account hijacking).
So-called AI software does not enjoy a special legal status (at present: one never knows what new law might be added). The question of whether any software can be distributed "safely" or "responsibly" is also not a legal issue. Nor is "true sentience" a relevant consideration, and nothing is guaranteed. When you distribute software of any kind, there is an implied warranty that the product is "fit", and if software kills you, you may be able to sue the creator for negligence. A software creator may then want to disclaim liability, by saying "WARNING: THIS PROGRAM MAY KILL YOU. OCP IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY INJURIES ARISING FROM USE OF THIS PRODUCT". This may or may not actually remove liability. In the UK "liability for negligence occasioning death or personal injury cannot be excluded", so such a disclaimer will not prevent a suit against the manufacturer. In the US, the issue is determined at the level of the state – here is a summary of the law in the states. Probably the primary question would be whether such a disclaimer is an unconscionable term, and the second question is whether the act constituted gross negligence (not simply "negligence"). Mississippi exceptionally does not allow disclaimers, but even then, it does allow disclaiming liability when it comes to computer hardware and software. A software disclaimer is not inherently unconscionable, though perhaps some specific disclaimer would be found to be. Courts typically disfavor disclaimers in the case of gross negligence, and again determining what constitutes "gross negligence" is determined on a state by state basis. If the act shows "reckless indifference to the rights of others" and "failure to use even slight care or conduct that is so careless as to show com­plete disregard for the rights and safety of others", then the act might be grossly negligent.
If I may paraphrase the scenario: The customer has a contract with the insurer The customer is contemplating undergoing a certain procedure and is unsure if it is covered under the contract The customer calls the insurer to ask this specific question The insurer says "yes" The customer undergoes the procedure The insurer refuses to pay on the ground that it is not covered under the contract. Let's put aside issues of evidence and what can be proved and assume these facts are not in dispute. There is no question that the contract has been renegotiated; it hasn't. This avoids the necessity of considering if the insurer's employee has the authority to do this or it the customer can rely that they do even if they don't. There are two possibilities: The procedure is covered and the insurer must pay under contract The procedure isn't covered and the insurer must pay under the tort of negligent misstatement. The insurer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. The insurer owes a duty of care to a customer who asks such a question to answer it correctly. It is foreseeable that the customer would act on the insurer's advice and incur costs that they may have avoided if the correct advice had been given. Nothing is ever certain in the law but this is as close as you can get.
What legal options do I have here? I don't think I can sue for defamation of character since the email was sent to me only. Your rationale about defamation is accurate with respect to the establishment (henceforth "company"). But you may sue the person(s) who approached the company to falsely accuse you of that crime. Being banned certainly qualifies as special damage (that is, concrete damage), whence you have a viable claim of defamation per quod. If the crime that was falsely imputed to you is a felony or serious crime, then you additionally have a viable claim of defamation per se. I was thinking that I may have some legal recourse since the email clearly threatens to defame my character if I re-enter the establishment You have legal remedies, although not necessarily from this angle. The company can credibly argue that it sought to discourage you from contravening the "safety measure" it adopted in response to the accusations made about you. If it turns out that the company fabricated any false accusations it divulges, though, then you could sue the company for torts related to --and in addition to-- its defamatory falsehoods. So far the information you share here shows no signs of company's involvement in inventing the false accusations. What legal options do I have here? You need to ask the company for source and details of the information. In line with this comment, you should also ensure the company is aware of the mistaken identity. If the company declines to listen to you --and ideally see any proofs you have--, that could evidence some sort of tortious conduct on the company's part. Beware that in Florida a defamed person is required to demand a retraction of the false accusations prior to filing a defamation suit. Absent that request for retraction, it will be very easy for the sued defamer(s) to have your complaint dismissed. If the company refuses to disclose the source of the false information, then you need to seek injunctive relief in court. That means suing the company so as to (1) compel the company to identify the person(s) who accused you, and perhaps (2) strike the ban that the company put in place as a result of the false accusations. Even if you don't prevail in striking the ban, the court proceedings would give you the occasion to set the record straight and prevent the company from defaming you if you legitimately expose (to the public) the arbitrariness of its ban. To be clear, the company can always indulge in defaming you for the sake of justifying its ban, although that would be dumb in light of what you will have proved in court by then. In jurisdictions where a request for retraction is not mandatory, a plaintiff who does not know the identity of his defamer(s) may (1) file suit against "Doe defendants", (2) subpoena the non-party company so as to obtain records related to the false accusations (obviously ensuring that these reveal the authorship thereof), and (3) upon production of subpoena records and requesting the identified defamer for a retraction, amend the complaint to properly identify the defendant. This would be more efficient than filing two suits (one for injunctive relief against the company, and another against the defamers). However, I am uncertain of whether this would work in Florida, given its pre-suit requirement of request for retraction.
united-states Under U.S. law in almost every U.S. jurisdiction this would be illegal conduct. Arnie would be a co-conspirator with Bob in money laundering and in embezzlement of government funds. These would usually be criminal felonies. The government (or a private whistleblower called a &quot;relator&quot; in what is called a &quot;qui tam&quot; action, conducted in a procedurally proper way which afford the government an opportunity to sue itself before bringing the private qui tam action) could also sue Arnie and Bob and hold them liable, jointly and severally, for the funds diverted to Arnie and Bob in this scheme, and probably for punitive damages and/or civil penalties as well. If the role played by Arnie was instead played by a U.S. publicly traded multinational company doing business in another country (or by an official of such a company who has knowledge of or is involved in the transaction with Bob), and it was also illegal to do this in that country (whether or not that law was enforced in that country), then the U.S. multinational company involved would also have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). As noted at the link: The FCPA is jointly enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which apply criminal and civil penalties respectively. So, in that case, it would be a violation of both U.S. and the other country's laws, in all likelihood giving rise to liability to both criminal and civil consequences in both countries. It isn't patently obvious that this conduct would be illegal under the law of every country, although it seems likely. For example, a sheriff operating a prison in Alabama can do something very similar (skim money off prison operation funds by obtaining low bids for prison service contracts) legally. Similarly, if Arnie had actually gone out and purchased metal parts from a third party at Bob's direction and then delivered those metal parts to Bob's government employer, that would be entirely legal almost everywhere (although any kickback to Bob, if that was what was really happening would still probably be some form of embezzlement in which Arnie might be conspiring). Also, while this is considered corrupt in most of the developed world, in many developing and undeveloped countries, civil servants are paid almost nothing and kick backs for supervising government contracts are tolerated at a minimum as a matter of unstated official policy by senior managers of the government entities that unofficially sanction or encourage this conduct by their subordinates. This reality is one of the main reasons that the U.S. FCPA is heavily criticized politically and in academic commentary. what would be the legal consequences of someone unconnected to the transaction who knows about it reporting or not reporting it? For example, does not reporting it give rise to a risk of civil or criminal liability? Normally, someone not involved in Arnie's company, like a family member of Arnie, would have no legal duty to report this conduct upon learning of it, and would face no legal consequences for failing to report it, if the person not reporting it wasn't actually involved in the scheme. Someone who cared about Arnie might want to counsel him that he is engaged in very risky conduct that could have catastrophic consequences if discovered and prosecuted. They might advise him that while this scheme does generate funds for Arnie that might not be worth the risk. Ultimately, as a practical matter, if that person didn't want to harm Arnie, however, that person would have to let Arnie decide for himself what to do. If subpoenaed to serve as a witness, someone who knew about Arnie and Bob's conduct (other possibly than Arnie's spouse and his lawyer if his lawyer learned about the conduct only after the fact), could be compelled to testify in a court of law against Arnie about what the person who knew about this scheme knew, possibly contributing to Arnie going to prison and facing monetary penalties.