Practice question
A licensee owes contractual royalties and must request an exemption for excluded products. A knowledgeable third person pressures it to pay nothing, not merely to advance a legitimate business interest but to injure the licensor and improve the third person’s position in another dispute. The licensee breaches and causes proven loss. The inducer says its own view about product coverage automatically excuses it. What follows from Tuna Processors?
- The third person’s private interpretation always cancels the licensee’s contract.
- Every disputed contract is automatically unenforceable against all parties.
- Only a criminal court may examine the inducement.
- The asserted belief is not automatically a legal justification; the actual contractual process and proven wrongful motive must be considered.
- Malice is irrelevant whenever the inducer also has a business interest.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, article1314.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/feb2024/gr_226445_2024.html — Tuna Processors v Frescomar, GR 226445 and 226631, February 27 2024, main opinion: valid contract, knowledge, unjustified interference, malice and damages.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.