[DataAF]

I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court where the requirements are much lower:

1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. Stefan is on mailchimp

2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.

3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. Tweet: https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1216903968439357446

4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. This is on Mailchimp's TOS

5. The contractual relationship is breached. Tweet: https://twitter.com/Mailchimp/status/1217073200414306304

6. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs. This remains to be seen

[duskwuff]

You are inappropriately equating the termination of a contract with a breach (= a violation) of the contract. The Mailchimp terms of service allow the company to terminate the contractual relationship at any time [1] -- they did not breach the contract by choosing to terminate it.

[1]: https://mailchimp.com/legal/terms/ -- "3. Closing Your Account: You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party."

[DataAF]

Good catch. Mailchimp has better coverage in their TOS than most I've looked at.

[duskwuff]

Better? Not unusually so. Unconditional termination clauses are standard practice; most terms of service will include something to that effect.

[dragonwriter]

> I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court

Well, it's not a case at all, and it's not likely to be one.

> Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.

Terminating a contract as provided for in the contract is not a breach of the contract. The only arguable breach is on Molyneux’s part by violating the ToS, and clearly Nandini didn't induce that breach.

[iron0013]

SM breached the contract himself when he violated the ToS.

[DataAF]

True, but then it's on MailChimp to prove it. They're definitely open to arbitration. I wouldn't want to be in that position.

[dragonwriter]

> True, but then it's on MailChimp to prove it.

No, it's not, unless they want damages or some other government-imposed remedy.

[iron0013]

Why not? It’s so clear cut it’d be a slam dunk for MailChimp.