- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You might wonder why exactly Mark Waid is so desperate to get this case out of Texas, to the point of making very silly arguments against personal jurisdiction. It has to do with his defense, and he's already given some hints as to his possible defense in the motion to dismiss, even though it isn't remotely relevant to jurisdiction so giving it away early is kind of an own goal by Zaid.
Let's take a look.
That sounds like a good defense, right? It's completely irrelevant to personal jurisdiction and Zaid is arguing about the actual case, which he shouldn't be doing here, but let's let that slide for the moment.
Let's distill this. Zaid's argument is that Waid can't have induced Antarctic to breach the contract because they'd already decided to break it.
Specifically, Antarctic would have broken the contract regardless of Waid's actions.
I seriously doubt the factual claim is true, but unfortunately for Waid, it wouldn't help him even if it were true.
His problem is there's a Texas case directly on point called Knox v. Taylor. Rackets mentioned this case during his stream and I think it's been mentioned in the thread before.
What does that case say about a similar thing?
The relevant fact, though, was that Titan, the relevant contracting party in the case, had not yet breached the contract. In fact, in this case, Titan had an exit clause allowing them to terminate the agreement.
In other words, the contract was still there at the time the defendant interfered with it.
Similarly, Antarctic's coerced public statement says more or less that Mark Waid's call was just the icing on the cake. "Mark shed more light on the situation."
The relevant matter is the timing, not how the parties characterized it subsequently. The contract had not been breached when Mark Waid called. That occurred afterwards. Even if Waid's interference was just the "icing on the cake" he still loses.
This is why Zaid really, really wants this case out of Texas.
(That wouldn't help for other reasons, because Texas law would still be the relevant binding law even if it were heard in another state but that's another issue.)
Yes, if that's really true. It's a pretty egregious misrepresentation, since going to Texas literally for the business he's in is obviously relevant. It undercuts any claim that it's a huge onerous burden for him to defend a case in Texas when he goes there for business already. Even if that wouldn't establish jurisdiction by itself it's clearly material to the due process analysis.
Let's take a look.
That sounds like a good defense, right? It's completely irrelevant to personal jurisdiction and Zaid is arguing about the actual case, which he shouldn't be doing here, but let's let that slide for the moment.
Let's distill this. Zaid's argument is that Waid can't have induced Antarctic to breach the contract because they'd already decided to break it.
Specifically, Antarctic would have broken the contract regardless of Waid's actions.
I seriously doubt the factual claim is true, but unfortunately for Waid, it wouldn't help him even if it were true.
His problem is there's a Texas case directly on point called Knox v. Taylor. Rackets mentioned this case during his stream and I think it's been mentioned in the thread before.
What does that case say about a similar thing?
The relevant fact, though, was that Titan, the relevant contracting party in the case, had not yet breached the contract. In fact, in this case, Titan had an exit clause allowing them to terminate the agreement.
In other words, the contract was still there at the time the defendant interfered with it.
Similarly, Antarctic's coerced public statement says more or less that Mark Waid's call was just the icing on the cake. "Mark shed more light on the situation."
The relevant matter is the timing, not how the parties characterized it subsequently. The contract had not been breached when Mark Waid called. That occurred afterwards. Even if Waid's interference was just the "icing on the cake" he still loses.
This is why Zaid really, really wants this case out of Texas.
(That wouldn't help for other reasons, because Texas law would still be the relevant binding law even if it were heard in another state but that's another issue.)
Yes, if that's really true. It's a pretty egregious misrepresentation, since going to Texas literally for the business he's in is obviously relevant. It undercuts any claim that it's a huge onerous burden for him to defend a case in Texas when he goes there for business already. Even if that wouldn't establish jurisdiction by itself it's clearly material to the due process analysis.
Last edited:
