Question

Trein, Inc. entered into a one-year, $1 million contract with Mia, a sports celebrity, to promote Trein's products. E-presto Inc., a competitor of Trein, was interested in having Mia promote its products but knew of her contract with Trein. E-presto offered Mia a three-year, $5 million contract. Mia left Trein and signed with E-presto. If Trein sues E-presto for tortious interference with a contract, E-presto:

a.
will be able to establish a justification since E-presto was acting to protect an existing economic interest.
b.
will be able to establish a justification because, in talking to Mia, E-presto was exercising its First Amendment freedom of speech.
c.
will be able to establish a justification because to decide otherwise would subject Mia to involuntary servitude.
d.
will not be able to establish a justification.

Answer 1

E-presto will not be able to establish a justification for tortious interference with Trein Inc.'s contract with Mia when sued. Defenses like protecting economic interests, freedom of speech, or avoiding involuntary servitude are invalid in this context.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question pertains to the scenario where Trein, Inc. has entered into a contract with Mia, a sports celebrity, to promote its products. If Trein sues E-presto for tortious interference with a contract, E-presto will not be able to establish a justification.

Justifications such as protecting an existing economic interest, exercising freedom of speech, or preventing involuntary servitude are not typically valid defenses in cases of tortious interference when a party intentionally induces a breach of an existing contract between other parties.

Justifications for Tortious Interference, E-presto's argument of protecting an existing economic interest would likely fail because tortious interference requires 'improper' action, and interfering with a competitor's valid contract generally does not qualify as protecting an economic interest.

Moreover, the First Amendment defense is generally not applicable to commercial speech that leads to illegal actions, such as inducing a breach of contract. Lastly, preventing involuntary servitude is irrelevant here because Mia had willingly entered into the agreement with Trein, and she is free to decline other offers until her contract expires.