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).
Sounds like Stefan and Mailchimp had a business arrangement and she's now a third party interfering with it (and bragging on twitter).
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
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
6. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs. This remains to be seen
No, it's not, unless they want damages or some other government-imposed remedy.
[1]: 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."
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.