Deck 5: Miscellaneous Torts Affecting Business

Question 1

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Liability under Rylands v Fletcher requires proof that the defendant was careless but not that he intentionally committed a wrong.
B) Because they are actionable per se, neither the tort of deceit nor the tort of conspiracy require proof that the plaintiff actually suffered a loss.
C) "Slander" refers to defamatory words that are written and "libel" refers to defamatory words that are spoken.
D) A person may be liable for a tort as a result of making a harmful and false statement about the plaintiff's business, rather than about the plaintiff.
E) The torts of intimidation and conspiracy have one thing in common: they both always require proof that the defendant committed an unlawful act in addition to committing the tort.

Answer 1

D

Question 2

Brownie Inc and Chewy Ltd are competitors in the chocolate bar market. Their "trade war" involves several facts. First, as part of a recent advertising campaign, Brownie claimed that claimed that its own products are calorie- free. Second, Brownie said that Chewy uses only third- rate materials in its products. Third, Brownie said that Chewy's products are proven to cause cancer. And fourth, Brownie occasionally packages its products in such a way as to make consumers believe that they are buying Chewy products. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) If Brownie's products are not calorie free, Brownie may be held liable for misleading advertising.
B) Neither company can be held liable for injurious falsehood unless it knew that it was committing a tort when it made a particular statement.
C) As long as Chewy suffered a loss of sales and Brownie acted maliciously, Brownie may be held liable under the tort of injurious reliance even if it is true that Chewy uses only third rate materials in its products.
D) If Chewy's products do not cause cancer, Brownie may be held liable under the tort of deceit as long as it should have known that its statement was false.
E) Chewy may be held liable under the tort of passing off if Brownie does occasionally package its products in such a way as to make consumers believe that they are buying Chewy products.

Answer 2

A

Question 3

Jimmy's Trucking Ltd has sued Hoffa Security Inc in tort. Jimmy's accuses Hoffa of committing torts that resulted in substantial economic losses. The evidence indicates that, aside from Jimmy's specific allegations in tort, Hoffa did not act in an unlawful or unauthorized way. The evidence further indicates that while Hoffa's actions were directed toward Jimmy's, Hoffa did not specifically intend to injure Jimmy's economic interests. On these facts, Hoffa may be liable for

A) intimidation but not conspiracy.
B) direct inducement to breach of contract, but not indirect inducement to breach of contract.
C) interference with economic relations but not interference with contractual relations.
D) conspiracy but not interference with economic relations.
E) conspiracy but not intimidation.

Answer 3

B

Question 4

Jasmine operated a small chalet in a mountain region. Isaiah rented one of her rooms for the night. Under the traditional common law rules regarding the tort of occupiers' liability, he would best be classified as

A) an invitee.
B) a trespasser.
C) a licencee.
D) a covenantor.
E) a contractual entrant.

Question 5

Emily was involved in a business dispute with Jacob. During a private conversation with Jacob, Emily threatened to spread a rumor that he was having an affair with her unless he agreed to sign a certain document. She knew that that rumor was entirely untrue, but she also knew that Jacob was afraid of upsetting his wife, who is very jealous. On the basis of those facts alone, which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Emily is liable to Jacob for the tort of interference with contractual relations.
B) Emily is not liable to Jacob.
C) Emily is liable to Jacob for the tort of defamation.
D) Emily is liable to Jacob for the tort of nuisance.
E) Emily is liable to Jacob for the tort of deceit.

Question 6

Sweety Cola and Bubbly Cola are competitors in the cola market. As part of a recent advertising campaign, Sweety claimed that: its cola has zero calories; Bubbly's cola has caused cancer in laboratory rats; Bubbly sells its cola in bottles that actually belong to other beverage manufacturers; and Bubbly sells its cola in bottles that are designed to make consumers believe that they are buying Sweety's cola. Bubbly has sued Sweety for the tort of injurious falsehood. Sweety may be held liable if

A) its cola has more than zero calories.
B) Bubbly does occasionally sell its cola in bottles that belong to other beverage manufacturers.
C) Bubbly does occasionally sell its cola in bottles that are designed to make consumers believe that they are buying Sweety's cola.
D) Bubbly Cola has not caused cancer in laboratory rats.
E) its comments caused Bubbly to suffer an economic loss, even though all of those statements were true.

Question 7

Dylan committed the tort of deceit against Hilary. He tricked her into investing $5000 in his business. If his statement had been true, her investment would now be worth $8000. However, because his statement was untrue, her investment has fallen in value to $4000. How much will Hilary probably receive in compensatory damages?

A) $4000
B) $8000
C) $5000
D) $1000
E) $3000

Question 8

Generally speaking, there are three sets of rules for the tort of occupiers' liability: the traditional common law rules, the judicially modified common law rules, and the statutory rules. The concept of common humanity is relevant if the plaintiff is

A) a trespasser under the statutory rules.
B) either an invitee or a licencee under the modified common law rules.
C) a trespasser under the modified common law rules.
D) either an invitee or a licencee under the traditional common law rules.
E) a trespasser under the traditional common law rules.

Question 9

Dakota sued Mariah for the tort of occupiers' liability in a jurisdiction that still used the traditional common law rules (as opposed to the judicially modified common law rules). The court held that Mariah was required to protect Dakota from unusual dangers that she should have known about. It therefore is most likely that Dakota was classified as a

A) contractual entrant.
B) licencee.
C) co- occupier.
D) invitee.
E) trespasser.

Question 10

Brandon intended to start a new company. He issued a public statement regarding the proposed business venture. That document contained a false statement to the effect that Brandon had received government authorization to use nuclear power for his venture. In fact, authorization had not yet been granted and, indeed, was eventually refused. After reading Brandon's public statement, Abigail invested in the company. She later lost her investment when the company folded. She then sued Brandon for the tort of deceit. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Brandon may be held liable even if he did not intend to deceive Abigail, as long as he did in fact deceive her.
B) The tort of deceit usually causes a court to award an injunction.
C) Brandon may be held liable even if he honestly believed that he had received government authorization to use nuclear power.
D) Even if Brandon is held liable, Abigail will not necessarily receive damages representing the value that her investment would have had if Brandon's statement had been correct.
E) Brandon may be held liable if a reasonable person would have relied upon his statement, even if Abigail did not do so when she made her investment.

Question 11

Cornelius recklessly stored a large box of fireworks on his residential property. The fireworks ignited when he carelessly threw a cigarette on them. Some of the fireworks shot off his property and struck a neighbouring house, which belonged to Cherilyn. Cherilyn's house was badly damaged by the fire. Although she could not, of course, recover compensation more than once for the same loss, she would probably be able to successfully sue Cornelius in tort for

A) nuisance but not Rylands v Fletcher or occupiers' liability.
B) Rylands v Fletcher and occupiers' liability and nuisance.
C) Rylands v Fletcher but not nuisance or occupiers' liability.
D) Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance but not occupiers' liability.
E) Rylands v Fletcher and occupiers' liability but not nuisance.

Question 12

Which of the following is the name of a defence to the tort of defamation?

A) due diligence
B) pseudo justification
C) public interest responsible journalism
D) honesty
E) qualified comment

Question 13

Brad made a false and unflattering statement about Concettina. He has been sued for defamation. That action can succeed only if the court is satisfied that

A) Brad made his statement without first carefully checking the facts.
B) Brad knew Concettina's identity.
C) Brad knew that his statement was false.
D) Concettina is still alive.
E) Brad's false statement mentioned Concettina by name.

Question 14

Winona has sued Ramon for the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. The court will impose liability if

A) Winona's injury was caused by a force of nature that Ramon could not have prevented.
B) Winona consented to the manner in which Ramon used his property.
C) Winona was injured even though Ramon used all reasonable care.
D) Winona's injury was the inevitable result of the fact that Ramon performed a statutorily authorized activity.
E) Winona's injury was caused by a malicious act by a third party that Ramon could not have prevented.

Question 15

The rules that apply under occupiers' liability statutes are different from the traditional common law rules in a number of ways. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) The new statutory rules are the same in every province because the relevant statute was enacted by Parliament.
B) A person who rents a property may be considered to be an occupier under the statutory rules, but not under the traditional common law rules.
C) The reason for the plaintiff's presence on the occupier's premises is relevant under the traditional common law rules, but not under the statutory rules.
D) A landlord could be held liable for premises occupied exclusively by a tenant under the traditional common law rules, but not under the statutory rules.
E) An occupier may be held liable for the activities of a third party under the statutory rules, but generally not under the traditional common law rules.

Question 16

To succeed in a claim for intimidation, the plaintiff must prove that

A) the defendant gained a benefit as a result of his or her actions.
B) the defendant threatened to commit a crime.
C) the defendant actually committed an unlawful act against either the plaintiff or a third party.
D) the defendant acted on behalf of the government.
E) the defendant's intimidation caused the threatened party to act in a certain way.

Question 17

Simon, who is nine years old, was recently injured after he wandered onto Regina's land. Simon was infected with a disease after he stepped barefoot on a syringe. The evidence indicates that Regina's land is routinely used by drug addicts to "shoot up." Regina was aware of that fact, but did nothing to stop it or post warning signs. Simon has sued Regina under the tort of occupiers' liability. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) If a court concludes that Simon's injury was caused by an activity on Regina's land, rather than the condition of Regina's land, then Regina may be held liable under statutory rules but not under the traditional common law rules.
B) If the statutory rules apply, then the court will apply the doctrine of common humanity.
C) The tort of occupiers' liability has been abolished in most provinces.
D) If the statutory rules apply, then Regina will be held liable only if she created the danger that caused Simon's injury.
E) If the common law rules apply to the facts, then it will be necessary to classify Simon as a trespasser, licensee, invitee, or contractual entrant.

Question 18

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the tort of injurious falsehood?

A) It always consists of a slander of title.
B) It requires proof that the defendant's statement caused the plaintiff to suffer a loss.
C) Because it requires proof of malice, it always leads to punitive damages.
D) It is another name for the tort of defamation.
E) It may be established on the basis of proof that the defendant should have known that the statement in question was false.

Question 19

Generally speaking, there are three sets of rules for the tort of occupiers' liability: the traditional common law rules, the judicially modified common law rules, and the statutory rules. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Under the statutory rules, there is no need to classify a visitor when determining the precise content of an occupier's duty of care.
B) Under the traditional common law rules, an occupier was merely required to refrain from intentionally or recklessly injuring a licencee.
C) Under the judicially modified common law rules, an occupier must protect both licencees and invitees from unusual dangers.
D) No duty of care is owed to a trespasser under the new statutory rules.
E) Under the traditional common law rules, a licencee was a person who had permission to be on the premises and whose presence on the premises furthered the occupier's economic interests.

Question 20

Alejandro and Chloe were involved in negotiations for the purchase and sale of her business. She may be held liable for the tort of deceit if

A) she offered an opinion about the profitability of the business that was based on information that he provided to her.
B) she refused to make a prediction about the profitability of the business even though she had sufficient information with which to do so.
C) she provided accurate information to his lawyer, which the lawyer misinterpreted before advising Alejandro on the sale.
D) she misled Alejandro, even if she did not intend to do so.
E) she made a prediction about the profitability of the business that was based on income tax returns that she knew contained false information.

Question 21

Because Katelyn has a disability, she receives daily care from her neighbour, Savannah. Savannah provides that care out of the goodness of her heart. She does not have an agreement of any sort with Katelyn. Caleb held a grudge against Katelyn as a result of a business dispute. He wanted to find some way of hurting her. He therefore told Savannah that he would burn her house down if she continued to care for Katelyn. Caleb's plan backfired. Savannah told Katelyn of the threat, and together they reported Caleb to the police. He was convicted of a crime. Katelyn, however, also wants to sue him for the tort of intimidation. The claim in intimidation will fail because

A) Caleb cannot be subject to both criminal prosecution and tort liability for the same act.
B) Caleb cannot be sued for intimidation because he did not act on behalf of the government.
C) the intimidation was unsuccessful.
D) Caleb did not threaten Emily directly.
E) Caleb was motivated by a desire to hurt Emily, rather than by a desire to benefit himself.

Question 22

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Liability for the tort of deceit may arise only if the defendant made a statement to the plaintiff.
B) If the plaintiff cannot sue for the tort of private nuisance, then it also will be impossible to to sue for the tort of public nuisance.
C) The defence of absolute privilege does not apply if the defendant maliciously made a defamatory statement.
D) Liability may be imposed under both the tort of intimidation and the tort of interference with contractual relations even if the defendant's primary purpose was to benefit itself, rather than hurt the plaintiff.
E) The tort of injurious falsehood always requires proof that the defendant made a false statement about the quality of the plaintiff's products.

Question 23

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Reach MD Inc v Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada is vitally important to the tort of

A) intimidation.
B) conspiracy.
C) interference with economic relations.
D) deceit.
E) occupiers' liability.

Question 24

The Northwest Utility Co (NUC) received statutory permission from the government to lay electrical cables under residential properties. Ariana suffered severe injuries when she struck a buried cable while gardening. If Ariana sues for the tort of nuisance, NUC will be able to avoid liability on the basis of the defence of statutory authority

A) only if a nuisance was the inevitable result of performing the statutorily authorized activity.
B) as long as a nuisance was the probable result of performing the statutorily authorized activity.
C) only if Ariana knew of the statute when she was injured.
D) as long as it did not intentionally create a nuisance when performing the statutorily authorized activity.
E) as long as a nuisance was a reasonably foreseeable result of performing the statutorily authorized activity.

Question 25

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the tort of conspiracy?

A) Liability can be imposed upon individuals, but not on organizations.
B) The tort requires at least two plaintiffs.
C) The plaintiff is always entitled to punitive damages.
D) The tort is harder to prove if the defendants conspired to commit a lawful act than if they conspired to commit an unlawful act.
E) The defendants will be held liable only if the conspiracy caused someone to break a contract with the plaintiff.

Question 26

Miguel and Caitlin own competing computer software companies. The success of Caitlin's business was due largely to the work of her chief designer, Mia. During a recent party, Miguel asked Mia if she was happy working for Caitlin. Mia answered, "It's okay, I guess." Miguel then spent the next hour explaining to Mia how she would earn a great deal more money, and how she would be involved in much more interesting projects, if she worked for him instead. Which of the following statements is most likely TRUE?

A) Connor cannot be held liable to Caitlin for the tort of interference with contractual relations if the court is satisfied that he provided Mia with information about his organization, but did not actually persuade her to leave her job with Caitlin.
B) Because he knew that Mia worked for Caitlin, he automatically will be liable for punitive damages if the court finds that a tort has been committed.
C) Because he knows of the employment contract between Caitlin and Mia, Miguel can be liable for the tort of interference with contractual relations if he unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Mia to leave her job with Caitlin.
D) Connor cannot be held liable to Caitlin for the tort of interference with contractual relations unless he committed some other tort, such as intimidation, against Mia.
E) If Mia does leave her job with Caitlin and begins to work for Connor, Caitlin will certainly be entitled to receive damages from Connor.

Question 27

Alpha Inc, Beta Inc, and Gamma Inc all produced and sold widgets. Alpha and Beta entered into an agreement that lasted for two years. Under that agreement, Alpha agreed to sell widgets only in the western provinces and Beta agreed to sell widgets only in the eastern provinces. The parties also agreed, for the two- year period, to sell their widgets for a price that was below their own costs. That agreement violated the Competition Act. As a result of the performance of that agreement, Gamma suffered enormous financial losses. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) The tort of conspiracy cannot be committed without intimidation.
B) Alpha and Beta have committed the tort of interference with contractual relations.
C) Alpha and Beta may be held liable for the tort of conspiracy as long as they should have known that their agreement would cause Gamma to suffer a loss.
D) Alpha and Beta have committed the tort of intimidation.
E) Alpha and Beta have committed the tort of conspiracy only if the primary intention of their agreement was to hurt Gamma.

Question 28

Rande was injured by an accident that occurred on land belonging to the Acme Chemical Company. The company may be held liable

A) under the strict liability tort of nuisance if Rande was injured as a result of its reasonable actions.
B) under the tort of trespass to land if a toxic chemical drifted off its land and injured Rande while he waited for a bus on a public sidewalk.
C) under the tort of nuisance if a chemical drifted off the company's land and ruined the paint on Rande's car, even if that vehicle was parked on public property.
D) under the tort of occupiers' liability if a toxic chemical drifted off of its own land and onto Rande's land, where it caused him to give up occupation of his property.
E) under the tort in Rylands v Fletcher if Rande fell into an unmarked pit on the company's land.

Question 29

Faith lives next door to Alphonse. He has sued her for committing the tort of nuisance. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Alphonse's claim will fail if Faith proves that he consented to her activities.
B) nuisance is a strict liability tort.
C) Faith cannot be held liable unless she actually caused something to touch Alphonse's property.
D) because nuisance is a strict liability tort, the law is concerned with Faith's motivation for acting as she did
E) the claim in nuisance will probably be successful if Faith decorated her house in a way that detrimentally affected the market value of Alphonse's property.

Question 30

The tort of unlawful interference with economic relations

A) is a sub- set of the tort of intimidation.
B) requires proof that, among other things, the plaintiff suffered a physical injury.
C) was recently rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada.
D) is one of the oldest torts.
E) requires proof that, among other things, the defendant acted with an intention to injure the plaintiff.

Question 31

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the tort of interference with contractual relations?

A) If the defendant is held liable for the tort, he or she will always be held liable for breach of contract as well.
B) Liability will never be imposed unless the defendant also committed a crime.
C) Liability will never be imposed unless the defendant intended to hurt the plaintiff.
D) Liability will never be imposed unless the defendant was a party to the contract in question.
E) Liability will never be imposed unless the defendant's actions actually caused a breach of contract.

Question 32

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the tort of defamation?

A) The tort of defamation may be committed every time that the same statement is repeated.
B) The requirement of publication is satisfied if the defendant communicates a false and unflattering statement to the plaintiff, as long as the plaintiff suffers a loss as a result.
C) The court may award compensatory damages, but not punitive damages.
D) If the plaintiff applies in a timely manner, a court will almost always grant an injunction to prevent the defendant from making a statement that may be defamatory.
E) Because the tort of defamation is concerned with the protection of reputations, liability may be imposed for a false statement that was made about a person, but not for a false statement that was made about a group of people.

Question 33

Connor and Sierra operated competing garages. Most of the work at Sierra's garage was performed by Vanessa, who was an excellent mechanic. One evening, Connor saw Vanessa at a bowling alley. He waited for the right moment and then dropped a bowling ball on her hand. Vanessa suffered a severe and permanent injury that will prevent her from working as a mechanic. Sierra wants to sue Connor for the tort of interference with contractual relations. To succeed in that action, Sierra must prove that

A) Connor intended to persuade Vanessa to work for him.
B) she paid Vanessa a higher salary than Connor was willing to pay Vanessa for the same work.
C) Connor intended to hurt Sierra's business.
D) Connor's actions were, in addition to constituting the tort of interference with contractual relations, unlawful in themselves.
E) Connor knew the full details of Vanessa's employment contract with Sierra.

Question 34

Juan entered into a contract with Makayla, under which he promised to add a solarium on to her house for $25 000. After starting the project, he threatened to abandon the job unless she agreed to pay him an additional $5000. Makayla wants to sue Juan for the tort of intimidation. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) That claim will probably fail because the tort of intimidation is recognized in England, but not in Canada.
B) That claim will probably fail because a court would prefer for Makayla to sue for breach of contract.
C) The tort of intimidation has an unusually short limitation period.
D) If that claim is successful, Makayla will actually receive damages in both tort and contract.
E) If that claim is successful, Makayla will probably receive an injunction that would force Juan to complete the job in exchange for the additional price.

Question 35

Ethan lives next door to Destiny. Which of the following activities might be considered a non- intrusive nuisance?

A) Ethan sells drugs out of his house and thereby attracts criminals to the neighbourhood.
B) Ethan consistently plays loud music at night.
C) Ethan operates a chemical business that causes poisonous substances to seep underground into his neighbnours' properties.
D) Ethan operates a metal press that causes Destiny's house to vibrate.
E) Ethan operates a pig farm that creates a foul odor.

Question 36

Bryce consistently commits the tort of nuisance against Aaliyah. She wants an injunction to stop him from doing so. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) A court will not grant an injunction unless Bryce acted maliciously.
B) Aaliyah cannot receive both an injunction and compensatory damages.
C) An injunction is never available with respect to a nuisance.
D) A court will grant an injunction only if Bryce's nuisance is intrusive.
E) Aaliyah has an absolute right to an injunction if Bryce's nuisance causes physical damage to her property.

Question 37

Which of the following factors will influence a judge's decision as to whether or not a party accused of the tort of nuisance used its property in a reasonable manner?

A) the nature of the damage that the plaintiff suffered
B) the fact that the defendant's activity diminishes the value of the plaintiff's property
C) the fact that the defendant has property insurance.
D) the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant are closely related
E) the happiness that the defendant receives from the activity in question

Question 38

The Business Club of Edmonton (BCE) is a voluntary organization of businesses in Alberta's capital city. Until recently, Gino's Pizza was one of its members. Gino left the BCE, however, after the BCE advised its other members to not do business with Gino's until Gino issued a formal apology for employing a convicted murderer who had been released on parole. Although the BCE's organizing rules (or "constitution") entitled the organization to impose various sanctions on its members for various reasons, its actions in this case did not fall within the terms of that constitution. Gino's pizza suffered economic loss as a result of the BCE's decision. Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to Gino's action against the BCE for unlawful interference with economic relations?

A) Gino must prove that BCE conspired with another party.
B) BCE cannot be held liable for a purely economic loss.
C) BCE may be held liable even if it did not commit a crime.
D) BCE cannot be held liable unless its actions constituted a crime.
E) Gino must prove that BCE acted for a malicious purpose .

Question 39

Isaac lives next door to Gabrielle. He operates a gun shop and firing range on his property. Gabrielle complains that Isaac's business creates a nuisance. In deciding whether or not Isaac's use of his own land is unreasonable, a court would be most influenced by which of the following factors?

A) the fact that bullets from the firing range occasionally shoot across Gabrielle's land
B) the time of day when the firing range is open for business
C) the fact that Isaac has a criminal record
D) the profitability of Isaac's business
E) the number of employees that work for Isaac's business

Question 40

Rex has sued Regina for the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. To succeed in that claim, he will be required to prove that

A) he suffered some injury or loss.
B) he occupied his property before Regina began to use her property in a dangerous manner.
C) Regina acted either carelessly or intentionally.
D) he was injured while visiting Regina's property.
E) the injury that he suffered was an inevitable result of the manner in which Regina used her property.

Question 41

Salvatore and Carolyn conducted lengthy negotiations that led to her purchase of his business. At the start of those negotiations, Salvatore made a number of statements regarding the business's profitability. Those statements were accurate when they were made. However, before the sale was finalized, the facts changed such that the earlier statements were no longer true. Salvatore knew of that change, but he did not provide Carolyn with updated information. Consequently, he may be held liable to her under the tort of deceit.

Question 42

Jessica was injured while trespassing on Zach's land. Under the modified common law rules, a court will use the standard of common humanity in determining whether or not Zach exercised sufficient care with respect to a Jessica.

Question 43

Amarjeet and Doris were competitors in the widget industry. In an over- exuberant effort to take over her business, Amarjeet told Doris that he would spread false and unflattering rumors about her unless she sold her company to him. While Doris was initially quite frightened by Amarjeet's behaviour, she eventually refused to sell her company to him. She has now sued him for the tort of intimidation. Amarjeet has argued in defence that he acted solely for the purpose of furthering his own financial interests, and not out of a desire to hurt Doris. The evidence indicates that he is telling the truth in that respect. He also resists liability on the basis that he never actually did defame Doris as he had threatened to do. Will either of those defences protect Amarjeet from liability? Is there any other basis upon which he can avoid liability? Explain your answers.

Question 44

Jerome worked for Kerasic Corp. He left that job, however, when he received the promise of better pay from Goldshlager Inc. Goldshlager may be liable to Kerasic as long as, among other things, Goldshlager should have known that Jerome had a contract of employment with Kerasic.

Question 45

Suki used her property in a way that interfered with the ability of her neighbour, Dick, to enjoy his property. If that interference is sufficiently severe, Suki may be held liable even if her actions were not unreasonable.

Question 46

Joel was injured while walking on Maureen's property. Under the statutory rules, it will generally be necessary for a court to determine Joel's precise status as a visitor before choosing the appropriate standard of care.

Question 47

Mohana visited Ian's home. She was injured when his pet wolverine escaped from its cage and bit her while she sat in his kitchen. Under the traditional approach to the tort of Rylands v Fletcher, Ian may be held liable to Mohana.

Question 48

A person cannot be held liable for occupiers' liability unless he or she owned the premises upon which the plaintiff was injured.

Question 49

Khalid was injured while trespassing on property owned and occupied by Charisse. He has sued her for the tort of occupiers' liability. Describe the relevant standard of care under: (i) the traditional common law rules, (ii) the modified common law rules, and (iii) the statutory rules.

Question 50

During recent proceedings, a Member of Parliament stood in the House of Commons and made an outrageously defamatory statement about the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will not be able to successfully sue for the tort of defamation because the statement in question is protected by the defence of absolute privilege.

Question 51

The tort of conspiracy always requires proof that the conspirators committed a crime.

Question 52

The tort of intimidation always requires proof that the defendant used a threat to cause a third party to act in a way that hurt the plaintiff.

Question 53

"To succeed in an action for intimidation, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant threatened to commit an unlawful act. Depending upon the circumstances, it may be sufficient if the plaintiff proves that the defendant threatened to commit a breach of contract." Explain the circumstances in which that statement is or is not true.

Question 54

It is easier to prove the tort of indirect inducement to breach of contract than it is to prove the tort of direct inducement to breach of contract.

Question 55

An action for the tort of nuisance can succeed only if the plaintiff and the defendant occupied neighbouring pieces of land.

Question 56

Sarah made several statements to John. Because he acted in reliance upon those statements, John suffered a loss. Assuming that the other elements of the tort are established, Sarah may be held liable for deceit as long as John proves that she carelessly failed to realize that her statements were false.

Question 57

The defence of statutory authority applies only if a nuisance was the inevitable result of the defendant's performance of a statutorily authorized activity.

Question 58

Casey published an untrue, unfounded, and unfavourable statement about Acme Corp, but not about any of its employees. He nevertheless may be held liable if the statement would tend to make reasonable people have a lower opinion of the corporation.

Question 59

What interest is the tort of defamation intended to protect? How is the requirement of publication related to that interest?

Question 60

Zeno was injured while he was either a licencee or an invitee on property owned and occupied by Kavita. He has sued her for the tort of occupiers' liability. Describe the relevant standard of care under: (i) the traditional common law rules, (ii) the modified common law rules, and (iii) the statutory rules.

Question 61

Johanna was employed by Raouf. Willie caused her to breach that employment contract. Raouf is trying to decide whether or not to sue Willie for interference with contractual relations. He therefore wants to know what facts he would be required to prove in order to succeed in such a claim. In that respect, why is it important for him to determine whether Willie provided Johanna with a direct or an indirect inducement to breach of contract?

Question 62

Bouba received special permission under the Radio and Satellite Signal Reception Act to erect a radio beacon on his property. The statute specified a number of technical requirements, but it did not impose requirements or restrictions regarding the height, shape, size, or location of the beacon. Bouba built a very tall beacon at the edge of his property, about 10 metres from a house that belonged to Virginia on the neighbouring piece of land. That beacon toppled over during a snowstorm and crashed through Virginia's roof. She has sued Bouba for the tort
of nuisance. He argues, however, that he is protected by the defence of statutory authority. Is he correct? Explain your answer.

Question 63

As a general rule, the tort of deceit is not committed if the plaintiff suffered a loss as a result of relying upon an opinion, prediction, or puff that the defendant made, even if that statement was incorrect or inaccurate. Identify and briefly explain the reason for that general rule.

Question 64

Siegfried owns a rattlesnake that he keeps in his office in a large, locked aquarium. Bianca was severely injured during a recent meeting at Siegfried's office after she was bitten by the snake. She has sued for the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. Siegfried claims that he should not be held liable because he took every reasonable precaution in placing the snake in a locked aquarium. He also argues that it was entirely unforeseeable that the lock would spontaneously spring open and release the snake from its cage. (The manufacturer of the lock went out of business several years ago and cannot be sued.) The judge has accepted the factual truth of those arguments, but has not yet decided upon their legal significance. Can Siegfried avoid liability under Rylands v Fletcher on the basis that he neither carelessly nor intentionally injured Bianca? Is there any other basis upon which he might avoid liability? Explain your answers.

Question 65

You and I are competitors in the publishing business. You and I both know that Mysty is my best employee and that much of my success is due to her efforts. You want to find some way of causing Mysty to stop working for me and, if possible, to start working for you. You have persuaded her to meet with you for a discussion of her future employment. You intend to tell her that I am a lousy employer. Identify and explain the risk management issues that you should bear in mind as you prepare for that meeting.

Question 66

Briefly explain the difference between the tort of private nuisance and the tort of public nuisance.

Question 67

Identify and briefly explain the considerations that will influence a court's decision to grant an injunction to stop an ongoing nuisance.

Question 68

Rachel owned the right to mine for gold on a particular piece of property. Because she lacked immediate financial resources, she issued a statement that was designed to attract investors. That statement was, as Rachel knew, inaccurate. It claimed that the land held considerably more gold than it actually did. Relying upon the truth of the information contained in Rachel's statement, Siddharth invested $100 000 in her mining project. On the basis of the statement, he expected to earn a net profit of $250 000. In fact, he earned a much more modest profit of $10 000. Siddharth has sued Rachel for the tort of deceit. How much will he receive as compensatory damages? Explain your answer.

Question 69

Slobodan and Ashraf allegedly committed the tort of conspiracy against Vanessa. She is trying to decide whether or not she will sue them. She therefore wants to know what facts she would be required to prove in order to succeed in such a claim. In that respect, why is it important for her to determine whether the act that Slobodan and Ashraf conspired to commit was, in addition to potentially underlying the tort of conspiracy, unlawful in itself?

Question 70

What is the defence of justification? To which tort does it apply?