 Hi, it's Weyland Chao. This is torts introduction and intentional torts module 4a part d in this part We'll look at the two intentional torts on our list, which are relevant to contracts deceit and interference with contractual relations The tort of deceit the requirements are the defendant made a false statement or in other words the defendant lied The defendant knows the statement is untrue or was reckless in determining the truth it Was intended to mislead the plaintiff and The plaintiff suffered a loss from reasonably relying on on that false statement There's no specific special defense to deceit, but generally the the defendant Would try to show that one or more of the requirements of the tort has not been proven by the plaintiff The the usual remedy is to is to provide damage damages to compensate for the plaintiff's losses that they may have suffered from relying on the false statement an Interesting case involving the tort of deceit is the Ontario Superior Court decision in Abramovitz and Lee this case involves a clarinettis a deceitful girlfriend and misguided love The facts of the case are That the clarinettis. Oh by the way that those pictures are just stock pictures. They're not pictures of the actual people involved here The clarinettis was named Eric Abramovitz. He was a gifted musician He was attending McGill University pursuing his music degree there But his his dream was to study with the best clarinett teacher in the world, which was Galad of the Ohuda Galad at the Colburn Music Conservatory in Los Angeles, California so he applied for admission to Colburn and applied for a full scholarship program that would have paid for all of his expenses to study at Colburn and It's very difficult to get in to Colburn to study with mr. Galad only he only accepted two new students each year So Eric had a girlfriend. Her name was Jennifer so they they were both music students at McGill and They had been in a intimate relationship and they were they were considered to be a couple and They trusted each other especially mr. Abramovitz trusted trusted Jennifer He gave her he gave her use of his of his laptop computer as well as his passwords Including his password to his email account So Colburn the Colburn Academy did get back to Eric by email and Said the email said that They were accepting him into their program and offered him a full scholarship however that email from Colburn was was intercepted by by Jennifer so she saw that she intercepted that email before Eric got to see it and and She decided that she wanted Eric to stay in Montreal instead of going down to study in LA so she responded in Eric's name to that email from Colburn that offered the spot and and the scholarship and the email declined the offer to Colburn and Then she deleted that acceptance email so that so that Eric wouldn't see it and Then she created a false email address to pretend that she was sending an email from mr. Galah Galad at Colburn and He she put together an email purportedly from mr. Mr. Galad and sent that to to Eric and Advising Eric that he had not been accepted into Colburn so so Eric was completely taken in by that deception he Truly thought that he had been rejected and had not been accepted into the Colburn program to study with Mr. Galad so he stayed in Montreal at McGill and completed his music music degree so eventually Eric did find out about this deception and He sued Jennifer and The court did not set out the applicable law for a deceit But did find that there was a tort a deceit in this case The court said that Jennifer had impersonated Eric to send a false rejection letter to Colburn and she impersonated mr. Galad to create an Email account in his name and to send a false rejection letter to Eric And she affected these steps by deleting the acceptance letter from Colburn to To Eric with the intention of misleading Eric She apparently did these things so that Eric would not leave Montreal and instead would stay in Montreal and remain in His relationship with her So since the court found that Jennifer did commit the tort of deceit The court then had to decide what were the appropriate remedies the court Said that Eric had lost a unique and prestigious Educational opportunity one that would have advanced his career as a professional clarinet is and the court awarded Eric $300,000 in general damages for cut to compensate for the economic loss that he suffered by not Being able to go down to study at Coburn with mr. Galad and They also awarded him punitive and aggravated damages $25,000 in punitive damages To address the reprehensible betrayal of trust and by Jennifer aptly described by mr. Galad as and Quote unthinkable immoral act unquote and the court also awarded the $25,000 in aggravated damages Representing the Incompensable personal loss suffered by Eric by having a closely held personal dream snatched from him by a person he trusted Let's have a look at this case Which is an example of the application of the tort of interference with contractual relations that tort is also commonly called The tort of inducing breach of contract This decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal called Juard and Kojiko cable Involved a Gentleman by the name of mr. Juard who was a cable and fiber optic installer He had worked for Kojiko cable for quite a while in the Windsor area up until 1999 When he resigned and took employment in the US when he returned to Canada in 2001 He came back to the Windsor area and he and he accepted a job with a company called Mastek Mastek was a cable industry contractor and one of its main one of its main clients was was Kojiko When Kojiko found out that Mastek had hired Juard Kojiko told Mastek that They would not allow Juard to work on any of its projects Then Mastek told mr. Juard, you know, we can't have you working on the Kojiko projects The only option is to allow is to get you to work on other projects farther away in London or Kitchener Mr. Mr. Juard, you know could not because of his family commitments could not accept that alternative assignment and That employment offer was was revoked then several months later Mastek hired mr. Juard again and and and assigned him again to a project involving Kojiko and again Kojiko told Mastek that they wouldn't allow mr. Juard on to work on any of its equipment and that caused Mastek to terminate mr. Juard's employment Because of this situation mr. Juard was under was unable to obtain any employment With any other Windsor cable industry contractor due to all the the rumors that swirled arising from from this incident with with Kojiko The legal issue that will focus on in this case has to do with whether or not Kojiko induced Mastek to breach its employment contract with Juard In other words did Kojiko commit the tort of interference with contractual relations Please note that the court also considered Another legal issue which was whether whether or not Kojiko committed the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations We will focus only on the part of the judgment that discusses the tort of inducing breach of contract also known as interference with contractual relations The court set out the requirements for the tort of inducing breach of contract Which is also called again the tort of interference with contractual relations So to to prove that tort the court said that the four elements had to be proven first Mr. Juard had a valid and enforceable contract with Mastek Second Kojiko was aware of the existence of that contract Third requirement was Kojiko intended to and did procure the breach of the contract and Lastly the fourth requirement as a result of the breach of contract mr. Juard suffered damages In in applying that those legal requirements to the facts of this case The court with respect to the first requirement said that there's no dispute that mr. Juard was hired In May of 2001 and did have a valid and enforceable employment contract with Mastek So that first requirement of having an actual contract is met The second requirement Kojiko had acknowledged that it was aware of the contract between Mastek and Juard So that satisfies satisfies the second requirement that Kojiko actually knew of the contract between Mastek and Juard So moving on to the third the third requirement The third requirement is that Kojiko must have intended to cause the breach of contract in between Mastek and mr. Juard and coming to the conclusion that that Kojiko did intend to cause the breach of contract the court looked at the findings the factual findings From the trial. So there's a whole list of six different facts That that were found at trial which the appeal court used to support the conclusion that there was an intention to cause a breach of contract The last element is that there that is that mr. Juard must have suffered damages with arising from the the in the breach of contract and And the court here the appeal court here accepted the trial court's Conclusion that mr. Juard did suffer damages. He specifically he did he wasn't able to find a job In his field of expertise in in the Windsor area and he had to accept other lower paying employment Let's recap the legal requirements for the tort of interference with contractual relations So the first requirement has to do with knowledge the defendant had to actually know about the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party The second requirement has to do with intention the defendant intended to cause the third party to breach the contract The third requirement is cause the defendant actually caused the third party to breach the contract and the fourth requirement is Loss the plaintiff suffered a loss from the breach of contract so this this tort typically arises when When one company is trying to lure away employees or customers of another company