Originally Posted by redevil2

While you are using a school playground analogy as a result of an idiotic/ridiculous statement made by Sepp Blatter, I am more inclined to analyse along a more serious line of thinking. There is an implication of a possible breach of Tort Law as far as Sepp Blatter is concerned having publicly made that statement.

In English law, there is a tort law offence known as 'Inducing Breach of Contract'

In short, “It is a violation of legal right to interfere with contractual relations recognized by law if there is no sufficient justification for the interference.”

And it's quite plainly Sepp Blatter might have committed such Tort offence!!!

The tort is described variously as inducing or procuring breach of contract, actionable interference with contractual rights. It has been applied to contracts of all kinds, the general tort of “direct invasion of legal rights” if you like.

In other words, it has been held in Court it's wrongful intentionally and without justification to bring about the violation of a legal right, the legal right of one party vis-à-vis the other to have a contract performed.

That said, for an act of inducement to be actionable, three elements are necessary.

First, the procurer must know of the existence of the contract and intend to interfere with its performance. (Check! Sepp Blatter is aware of the contractual relationship of the player and United)

Secondly, the procurer must not have had any sufficient justification for so acting. In this respect, the courts may have regard “to the nature of the contract broken; the position of the parties to the contract; the grounds for the breach; the means employed to procure the breach; the relation of the person procuring the breach to the person who breaks the contract; and ... the object of the person in procuring the breach”. To justify an inducement, it is not enough to show that the procurer was acting in good faith in the pursuit of a legitimate interest; there has to be something in the nature of a moral duty or a distinct legal right to act.(Check! Sepp Blatter has no moral and therefore has no justification in law in making such statement)

Thirdly, the contract must actually have been broken, causing actual damage to the plaintiff. (now we are awaiting Ronnie to breach his contract, and Sepp Blatter is to be accountable for the damages we have suffered!)

What say you? (Well never mind, I am more interested in what the Legal Team at United has to say about it! I hope they do something!!!)