- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Looks like that Waid/Zaid's "truth as defense" case will not work under Texas law with regards to torturous interference.
It's tortious interference, that is, interference that is a tort, not torturous interference, which would be interference by torturing someone. While listening to Mark Waid screeching insanely over a phone might be torture, that's not what he's being sued over.
Something Rekieta didn't mention is that the truth defense could work against the defamation claim, although neither party probably wants to argue much about the truth of the claims themselves, because that means doing it in front of a jury at huge expense to everyone. It's a much better defense to argue that the claims were protected opinions in context of the defamation claim.
That's still an entirely different cause of action.
Waid could prevail on the defamation claim and still lose on the tortious interference claim.
The complaint cites Waid's threats to put Antarctic out of business as what caused them to cave in, as they were already aware of the defamatory claims and unmoved by them. Waid calling them and letting them know he and people acting in concert with him would ruin Antarctic utterly was what caused them to cave in.
Threats like that aren't protected, even if they are truthful. After all, the Godfather really will make sure you sleep with the fishes if you don't take the offer you can't refuse.