6 ms·

Doesn't this open Nandini Jammi up to a Tortious interference lawsuit? Sounds like Stefan and Mailchimp had a business arrangement and she's now a third party

by DataAF 7y ago

Doesn't this open Nandini Jammi up to a Tortious interference lawsuit? Sounds like Stefan and Mailchimp had a business arrangement and she's now a third party interfering with it (and bragging on twitter). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

gdulli 7y ago
I can't imagine a situation where MailChimp is legally prevented from enforcing its own terms of use just because a third party pointed out the breach. Think of how exploitable that loophole would be.
- DataAF 7y ago
  I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court where the requirements are much lower: 1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. Stefan is on mailchimp 2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. 3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. Tweet: https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1216903968439357446 https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1216903968439357446 4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. This is on Mailchimp's TOS 5. The contractual relationship is breached. Tweet: https://twitter.com/Mailchimp/status/1217073200414306304 https://twitter.com/Mailchimp/status/1217073200414306304 6. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs. This remains to be seen
  - iron0013 7y ago
    SM breached the contract himself when he violated the ToS.
    - DataAF 7y ago
      True, but then it's on MailChimp to prove it. They're definitely open to arbitration. I wouldn't want to be in that position.
      - iron0013 7y ago
        Why not? It’s so clear cut it’d be a slam dunk for MailChimp.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > True, but then it's on MailChimp to prove it. No, it's not, unless they want damages or some other government-imposed remedy.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    You are inappropriately equating the termination of a contract with a breach (= a violation) of the contract. The Mailchimp terms of service allow the company to terminate the contractual relationship at any time [1] -- they did not breach the contract by choosing to terminate it. [1]: https://mailchimp.com/legal/terms/ https://mailchimp.com/legal/terms/ -- "3. Closing Your Account: You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party."
    - DataAF 7y ago
      Good catch. Mailchimp has better coverage in their TOS than most I've looked at.
      - duskwuff 7y ago
        Better? Not unusually so. Unconditional termination clauses are standard practice; most terms of service will include something to that effect.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court Well, it's not a case at all, and it's not likely to be one. > Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. Terminating a contract as provided for in the contract is not a breach of the contract. The only arguable breach is on Molyneux’s part by violating the ToS, and clearly Nandini didn't induce that breach.

by DataAF 7y ago

gdulli 7y ago

I can't imagine a situation where MailChimp is legally prevented from enforcing its own terms of use just because a third party pointed out the breach. Think of how exploitable that loophole would be.

DataAF 7y ago
I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court where the requirements are much lower: 1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. Stefan is on mailchimp 2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. 3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. Tweet: https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1216903968439357446 https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1216903968439357446 4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. This is on Mailchimp's TOS 5. The contractual relationship is breached. Tweet: https://twitter.com/Mailchimp/status/1217073200414306304 https://twitter.com/Mailchimp/status/1217073200414306304 6. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs. This remains to be seen
- iron0013 7y ago
  SM breached the contract himself when he violated the ToS.
  - DataAF 7y ago
    True, but then it's on MailChimp to prove it. They're definitely open to arbitration. I wouldn't want to be in that position.
    - iron0013 7y ago
      Why not? It’s so clear cut it’d be a slam dunk for MailChimp.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > True, but then it's on MailChimp to prove it. No, it's not, unless they want damages or some other government-imposed remedy.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  You are inappropriately equating the termination of a contract with a breach (= a violation) of the contract. The Mailchimp terms of service allow the company to terminate the contractual relationship at any time [1] -- they did not breach the contract by choosing to terminate it. [1]: https://mailchimp.com/legal/terms/ https://mailchimp.com/legal/terms/ -- "3. Closing Your Account: You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party."
  - DataAF 7y ago
    Good catch. Mailchimp has better coverage in their TOS than most I've looked at.
    - duskwuff 7y ago
      Better? Not unusually so. Unconditional termination clauses are standard practice; most terms of service will include something to that effect.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court Well, it's not a case at all, and it's not likely to be one. > Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. Terminating a contract as provided for in the contract is not a breach of the contract. The only arguable breach is on Molyneux’s part by violating the ToS, and clearly Nandini didn't induce that breach.