• Home
  • #1818 (no title)
  • Info
  • News
  • Archive
  •  

    Monday, May 18, 2009

    tortious interference Courtoon

    12 responses to “Monday, May 18, 2009”

    1. Mr. Cat says:

      dis jus lyke mai hoomin!11

      trtl wif a gun iz mai bess fend .

      dis git LolO LOl mew from me !!

    2. jevalpo says:

      Check your spelling. It’s tortoise. Funny though.

    3. BeakerBoy says:

      Thank goodness it wasn’t a swine. Then the contract would be void because of undue influenza.

    4. Jeremy says:

      OK, a worried bar studier has to ask: This wouldn’t actually be tortious interference with a contract, right? Because if the guy hadn’t signed yet, there’s no contract formed yet, and a fully-formed contract is required for there to be tortious interference…

      UNLESS there was already an oral contract and this was just the memorialization being signed…

      Nevermind. Is the bar over yet?

    5. Whaaaat? says:

      It’d be tortious interference with prospective economic advantage if there’s no contract formed yet (although this is a really hard theory to recover under)…wow, I actually learned something in torts this past semester!

    6. BeakerBoy says:

      Jeremy, you may be correct, but tortoises are by nature slow and so must start before the contract is signed for them to be able to get the appropriate threat out in a timely fashion.
      Also, I’d worry about the turtle’s motives. It appears he’s just trying to cover for a shell corporation.

    7. LawDawg says:

      I’m ashamed to admit I laughed out loud at this.

    8. David Mills says:

      Oops. Just fixed the spelling.

    9. 1L says:

      David,

      I seriously think you’re following me sometimes. I just finished working on this claim today (externing for a judge).

    10. c. says:

      i laughed out loud.

    11. Snarkgirl says:

      I was crying, tears in my eyes. My colleagues (non-lawyers) didn’t get it. Sigh.

    12. This is too funny. Puns are my favorite!