💼 Careercow Mark Waid / William Mark Waid - Comics legend turned laughingstock, SJW lunatic, Dislikes Asians, Sued for Tortious Interference, King Baby, “The Strong Protect The Weak”

[AnOminous]

If their reasoning is along the lines of not wanting to get between these 2 guys having a spat, that isn't going to satisfy TI.

That's exactly the motivation that's prohibited. If they dropped the contract because of Waid's actions, it's TI. That's literally what TI is.

 

[Skeptical Idiot]

Yeah, Rekieta Law already explained why the "They said it wasn't what made them do it" defense isn't going to fly. Under Texas law, the actionable tortious interference can occur at any point before the contract is actually severed, it doesn't matter if Waid had burst into the room while Dunn was dialing the phone to call Meyer and end it and shouted "He's a Nazi, drop him!", it still counts. Attempting to inflict tortious interference is enough, they don't actually have to prove that it was his influence alone that caused it.

I hate to disagree with Nick Rekieta. I may even be wrong, but as I understand it, the elements for a tortious interference with contract claim in Texas are

• the existence of a contract subject to interference;
• the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional;
• the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damage; and
• actual damage or loss occurred.

There was definitely a contract and Waid willfully and intentionally interfered with the Contract. Meyer also lost the contract so there are actual damages. It's the third element that I think fails under the "walking in as Dunn is about to call and cancel the contract when Waid yells out he's a Nazi, drop him" hypothetical.

If Dunn had already decided to cancel the contract, then how is Waid's yelling Nazi a proximate cause of Meyer's lost contract? If Dunn was teetering on the edge and Waid's BS is just one tiny element that Dunn considered in deciding to cancel the contract, then I would agree.

But I think the alleged interference has to have in some way been a proximate or legal cause of Meyer's lost contract.

 

[Shaka Brah]

I hate to disagree with Nick Rekieta. I may even be wrong, but as I understand it, the elements for a tortious interference with contract claim in Texas are

• the existence of a contract subject to interference;
• the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional;
• the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damage; and
• actual damage or loss occurred.

There was definitely a contract and Waid willfully and intentionally interfered with the Contract. Meyer also lost the contract so there are actual damages. It's the third element that I think fails under the "walking in as Dunn is about to call and cancel the contract when Waid yells out he's a Nazi, drop him" hypothetical.

If Dunn had already decided to cancel the contract, then how is Waid's yelling Nazi a proximate cause of Meyer's lost contract? If Dunn was teetering on the edge and Waid's BS is just one tiny element that Dunn considered in deciding to cancel the contract, then I would agree.

But I think the alleged interference has to have in some way been a proximate or legal cause of Meyer's lost contract.

If there's evidence that the contract was dropped after Waid fucked around, Dunn would have to have proof he was going to cancel the contract beforehand. Otherwise what other conclusion is there to reach?

 

[RodgerDodger]

I hate to disagree with Nick Rekieta. I may even be wrong, but as I understand it, the elements for a tortious interference with contract claim in Texas are

• the existence of a contract subject to interference;
• the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional;
• the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damage; and
• actual damage or loss occurred.

There was definitely a contract and Waid willfully and intentionally interfered with the Contract. Meyer also lost the contract so there are actual damages. It's the third element that I think fails under the "walking in as Dunn is about to call and cancel the contract when Waid yells out he's a Nazi, drop him" hypothetical.

If Dunn had already decided to cancel the contract, then how is Waid's yelling Nazi a proximate cause of Meyer's lost contract? If Dunn was teetering on the edge and Waid's BS is just one tiny element that Dunn considered in deciding to cancel the contract, then I would agree.

But I think the alleged interference has to have in some way been a proximate or legal cause of Meyer's lost contract.

Dunn's brother's testimony regarding what he witnessed, what happened when Waid called him by mistake (they all look the same after all!) and his conversations with his brother pretty clearly show that Waid's interference occured before Joe Dunn made a decision, and very clearly influenced or forced that decision. Joe Dunn felt intimidated. and When Waid later accidentally called Ben Dunn thinking it was Joe Dunn, it was clear that Waid knew that what he had done was illegal and was attempting to bully AP into covering up his involvement.

Ben Dunn was not the party being intimidated nor th eparty actually breaching the contract. The Court views him as the witness of greater weight than Joe Dunn's public statements.

 

[Skeptical Idiot]

Dunn's brother's testimony regarding what he witnessed, what happened when Waid called him by mistake (they all look the same after all!) and his conversations with his brother pretty clearly show that Waid's interference occured before Joe Dunn made a decision, and very clearly influenced or forced that decision.

I agree with this. What I questioned is the scenario, where "... it doesn't matter if Waid had burst into the room while Dunn was dialing the phone to call Meyer and end it and shouted "He's a Nazi, drop him!", it still counts."

If this clown Dunn is already dialing the phone to cancel the contract, then Waid's "He's a Nazi, drop him" can't be a proximate cause of the contract cancellation. If Meyer can prove your scenario and it sounds like he can, the Waid's on the hook for interference.

If there's evidence that the contract was dropped after Waid fucked around, Dunn would have to have proof he was going to cancel the contract beforehand. Otherwise what other conclusion is there to reach?

Again, I agree with this, because under this scenario, Waid's fucking around would be a legal factor in the contract being canceled.

Waid's argument, on the other hand, is that Antarctic had already decided to cancel the Jawbreaker contract before Waid fucked around and that he didn't influence the decision to cancel the contract (in other words, Waid is arguing the "I came in the room and shouted the man's a fucking Nazi just as Antartic was dialing up Meyer to cancel the Jawbreaker contract" scenario). While this factual scenario appears to be total bullshit from what I've read, if Waid could prove this (he almost assuredly can't), then I'm saying the proximate cause element of Texas tortious interference claim fails and Meyer would lose under that scenario, but that Meyer would win under the scenario you outlined.

 

[RodgerDodger]

I agree with this. What I questioned is the scenario, where "... it doesn't matter if Waid had burst into the room while Dunn was dialing the phone to call Meyer and end it and shouted "He's a Nazi, drop him!", it still counts."

If this clown Dunn is already dialing the phone to cancel the contract, then Waid's "He's a Nazi, drop him" can't be a proximate cause of the contract cancellation. If Meyer can prove your scenario and it sounds like he can, the Waid's on the hook for interference.



Again, I agree with this, because under this scenario, Waid's fucking around would be a legal factor in the contract being canceled.

Waid's argument, on the other hand, is that Antarctic had already decided to cancel the Jawbreaker contract before Waid fucked around and that he didn't influence the decision to cancel the contract (in other words, Waid is arguing the "I came in the room and shouted the man's a fucking Nazi just as Antartic was dialing up Meyer to cancel the Jawbreaker contract" scenario). While this factual scenario appears to be total bullshit from what I've read, if Waid could prove this (he almost assuredly can't), then I'm saying the proximate cause element of Texas tortious interference claim fails and Meyer would lose under that scenario, but that Meyer would win under the scenario you outlined.

In Texas, if the contract has not been cancelled, before the interfering party interferes, then it is TI. It does not matter what Dunn's "intent" at that point was. Waid stepped in before Joe Dunn cancelled the contract.

 

[AnOminous]

I hate to disagree with Nick Rekieta. I may even be wrong, but as I understand it, the elements for a tortious interference with contract claim in Texas are

• the existence of a contract subject to interference;
• the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional;
• the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damage; and
• actual damage or loss occurred.

There was definitely a contract and Waid willfully and intentionally interfered with the Contract. Meyer also lost the contract so there are actual damages. It's the third element that I think fails under the "walking in as Dunn is about to call and cancel the contract when Waid yells out he's a Nazi, drop him" hypothetical.

If Dunn had already decided to cancel the contract, then how is Waid's yelling Nazi a proximate cause of Meyer's lost contract? If Dunn was teetering on the edge and Waid's BS is just one tiny element that Dunn considered in deciding to cancel the contract, then I would agree.

But I think the alleged interference has to have in some way been a proximate or legal cause of Meyer's lost contract.

Have you read Knox v. Taylor? It addresses this exact issue and rejects this argument in circumstances nearly identical to the current case.

Appellants claim the distribution of the memo did not cause the relationship between Titan and appellees to end because the Titan/SMGA contract provided either party could terminate the contract with written notice.   The Titan/SMGA contract was terminable-at-will by either party.   Until terminated, third persons are not free to tortiously interfere with contracts which are terminable-at-will.   See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex.1989) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766, cmt. g (1979)).   Therefore, it is no defense to an action for tortious interference that a contract is terminable at will.   See Juliette Fowler Homes, Inc., 793 S.W.2d at 666 (citing Sterner, 767 S.W.2d at 689).

Appellants also contend the testimony of Watson establishes Titan would have exited the contract surety business regardless of Knox's actions.   Watson testified that in October 1993, he was concerned that Titan would not be able to make any money from the contract surety business.   Moreover, Watson stated the memo had no effect on his relationship with or opinions of Taylor.

And then:

Moreover, Watson stated he did not have any problems with Taylor's operation in 1993.   In fact, Watson believed Taylor had helped Titan in controlling its losses from business written before contracting with SMGA and that the SMGA bonding program was profitable at the time Titan sent notice of cancellation in December 1993.   Finally, with respect to whether receiving the anonymous package “accelerated” Titan's decision to exit the contract surety business, Watson responded, “Oh, I'd say that it was a, you know, sort of the icing on the cake.”

And the court rejected this as a defense. So long as the interference occurred before the decision was ultimately made, speculation that the contract would have terminated anyway is no defense.

 

[Skeptical Idiot]

In Texas, if the contract has not been cancelled, before the interfering party interferes, then it is TI. It does not matter what Dunn's "intent" at that point was. Waid stepped in before Joe Dunn cancelled the contract.

When you refer to intent and I refer to proximate cause, we may be talking about different things. I am saying that under Texas law, Meyer has to establish intentional interference with the Jawbreaker contract that was a proximate cause of Meyer's damages. This means that Waid's "stepping in" had to play a substantial role in causing the contract's cancellation.

My argument is based on a 2016 Texas Appellate case. The law may have developed in the last few years:

To establish intentional interference with a contract, the plaintiff must show a willful and intentional act of interference that was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages. Proximate cause consists of two elements, cause in fact and foreseeability. The tortious conduct must constitute a cause in fact, meaning that the alleged act was a substantial factor without which the injury would not have occurred. The defendant's act is not a substantial factor if it does no more than furnish a condition that makes the injuries possible. MJS & Associates, L.L.C., v. Master.

It's a moot point. I suspect ample evidence exists to show that Waid's interference is why Antarctic canceled the Jawbreaker contract, which means that Waid's interference will prove to be the proximate cause of Meyer's damages.

Have you read Knox v. Taylor? It addresses this exact issue and rejects this argument in circumstances nearly identical to the current case.

Thanks! Excellent cite and I have now read the case. I think I may read the case slightly differently than you and everyone else. It's fine I can be on the wrong end of this argument. For grins, I will explain my view of Knox v. Taylor.

In Knox v. Taylor, the Court is looking to see if there is enough evidence to support the lower court’s verdict. Specifically, for the tortious interference claim, the Court is looking at two points of error:

“In their twentieth and twenty-first points of error, appellants claim there is legally and factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Knox intentionally interfered with the Titan/SMGA contract.”

So Knox claims Taylor didn’t give the jury enough evidence to base a verdict against Knox. This means the Court of Appeal has to look at all the evidence and only if there is enough evidence, will the Appellate Court not overrule the lower court.

First, the Court addresses red herring that the Titan contract was “terminable at will.” The Court of Appeals calls bullshit and moves on to the rest of the evidence. It lays out Knox’s argument that they had already decided to end the contract and they didn’t end the contract due to the interference.

And it lays out Tayor’s position:

“According to Taylor, Watson was in agreement on a long-term relationship, and it was based on this understanding that Taylor entered into an MGA agreement with Titan. The testimony of Watson and Mangold appear to confirm Taylor's belief that Titan entered into the MGA relationship with SMGA for the long term. Watson testified, "I don't think we anticipated entering into an agreement with anybody, Stacy included, if, you know, it was for a short term." Mangold testified that in his discussions with Taylor, they had hoped for a long-term relation between SMGA and Titan.

Moreover, Watson stated he did not have any problems with Taylor's operation in 1993. In fact, Watson believed Taylor had helped Titan in controlling its losses from business written before contracting with SMGA and that the SMGA bonding program was profitable at the time Titan sent notice of cancellation in December 1993. Finally, with respect to whether receiving the anonymous package "accelerated" Titan's decision to exit the contract surety business, Watson responded, "Oh, I'd say that it was a, you know, sort of the icing on the cake.”

Then after looking at all the evidence, the Court of Appeals says, “We the find the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that Knox's sending the memo interfered with Taylor's business relationship with Titan.”

What it is not doing is saying, we accept Knox’s story and find that even if Knox’s story is true, Taylor still wins. It’s just saying, Taylor’s story was enough for the jury to find against Knox. By implication, the jury did not believe Knox's version of the facts.

You and I may still disagree. That’s fine. We just read the case differently.

 

[AnOminous]

Then after looking at all the evidence, the Court of Appeals says, “We the find the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that Knox's sending the memo interfered with Taylor's business relationship with Titan.”

What it is not doing is saying, we accept Knox’s story and find that even if Knox’s story is true, Taylor still wins. It’s just saying, Taylor’s story was enough for the jury to find against Knox. By implication, the jury did not believe Knox's version of the facts.


You and I may still disagree. That’s fine. We just read the case differently.

It's declining to set aside the jury's findings. In particular, a statement by one of the contracting parties that essentially the contract was already on its way out was not a sufficient defense even if accepted to be true.

It's fairly clear the defense in this case, much as the defense in Knox v. Taylor, is placing a lot of weight on a statement by the breaching party that they weren't directly influenced by the actions of the defendant, and I don't think that it will actually prove to be of any importance at all.

 

[Jub-Jub]

Hoping @FROG can provide more details of this incident.

Rob Granito story

 

[gobbogobb]

I didn't do it is a defense but a judge or jury has every right to call bullshit

 

[AnOminous]

I didn't do it is a defense but a judge or jury has every right to call bullshit

And specifically, in a factual dispute, the judge or jury has to hear the case to decide that. It isn't a basis for dismissal for failure to state a claim. If a reasonable finder of fact could find that Waid's actions were a proximate cause (note indefinite article as used in the case law) of breach, a TI claim can't be dismissed for failure to state a claim or on summary judgment.

 

[gobbogobb]

Lol I didn't realize they tried that in a 12b6. Ballsy...

Alogs take note of this btw. Especially DSP alogs that venture out here

 

[DragoonSierra]

Didnt this asshole accuse a black guy of being racist on twitter recently?

 

[UY 690]

Didnt this asshole accuse a black guy of being racist on twitter recently?

He did.

 

[AnOminous]

Didnt this asshole accuse a black guy of being racist on twitter recently?

He literally called a black guy a white supremacist, exactly what he called Richard Meyer. He's a lunatic who just calls everyone that, apparently.

 

[TheWatchfulFurfag]

He literally called a black guy a white supremacist, exactly what he called Richard Meyer. He's a lunatic who just calls everyone that, apparently.

He's a baby. Call bad man the magic word to make bad man go away.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

He literally called a black guy a white supremacist, exactly what he called Richard Meyer. He's a lunatic who just calls everyone that, apparently.

"It's a broad spectrum" indeed.

 

[damian]

Didnt this asshole accuse a black guy of being racist on twitter recently?

Facebook actually. I posted it in the CG thread.

 

[Doctor Placebo]

"It's a broad spectrum" indeed.

He used the word "borderline" this time. Clearly our boy Marky has really evolved since getting slapped with this lawsuit.

He's not alone with this white supremacist kick either. It seems to be all the rage with far left social justice types. It's also spectacularly stupid because while it may have more kick to it than just calling someone racist, white supremacism is a very specific, very hardline ideology. It's far easier of an accusation to disprove. Not keeping the accusations somewhat vague is going to result in a lot more of them getting BTFO like Waid did with Just Some Guy, and make it far more obvious how crazy/malicious they are. Obvious weasel words may help protect them from legal action, but they're not going to save them from that court of public opinion they love so much.