Possible causes of action that popped up in my head if this Hurricane situation needs court lawfare.
Sue Hurricane Electric directly for intentional interference with contractual relations. It requires (in Washington):
(1) The existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferor; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted. (See Burkheimer v. Thrifty Inv. Co., 12 Wn. App. 924, 12 Wash. App. 924, 533 P.2d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975) ). “Ill will, spite, defamation, fraud, force, or coercion, on the part of the interferor, are not essential ingredients” (Pleas v. Seattle, 112 Wn. 2d 794, 112 Wash. 2d 794, 774 P.2d 1158 (Wash. 1989)). “Plaintiff must show not only that the defendant intentionally interfered with his business relationship, but also that the defendant had a duty of noninterference; i.e., that he interfered for an improper purpose or used improper means”, “Interference can be [improper] by reason of a statute or other regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession.”
First one is easily met, if Null used the services of Incognet, he had a contract with them for them to provide their services. Secondly, given that HE specifically obstructed traffic Incognet requested for its client (as I understand it), knowledge of the contract is met. Thirdly, they did intentionally cause Incognet to be unable to fufil its contract to Null (to provide services). And fourthly, damages, of which there likely is some. Regarding the improperness, as both Null and Incognet mentioned, Washington law, by statute, forbids the actions HE took. That too, therefore, is met.
As a baseline plan/idea this has some merit, and it benefits from the fact that additional causes of action could be added. Additional possible cause of action:
- Conversion (maybe). Conversion is a tort which is the act of “‘wilfully interfering with any chattel, without lawful justification, whereby any person entitled thereto is deprived of the possession of it”. See Washington State Bank v. Medalia Healthcare, 96 Wn. App. 547, 96 Wn. App. 1033, 96 Wash. App. 1033, 96 Wash. App. 547 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Two important questions about this remain. Are subnet of IP addresses considered properties, and could Null sue for interference of Incognet’s property loss of which caused damages to Null?
I’m not entirely certain about the viability of the additional cause of action, but if Null talks with a lawyer about how to proceed, intentional interference with contractual relations seems like something worthwhile to ask a lawyer about as a plan to move forward.
