Practice question
A plaintiff proves that an outsider knew of its contract but presents no proof that the outsider induced a breach or acted without justification. It asks for liability solely because the outsider is a commercial rival. What is the proper analysis?
- Rivalry substitutes for every missing element.
- Knowledge conclusively proves malicious inducement.
- Knowledge and rivalry alone do not establish the required unjustified interference and resulting liability.
- All competitors are guarantors of one another’s contracts.
- The outsider must disprove every contract in the market.
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.