| > The conference organizers are in breech of contract “Breach”, and probably not. While Martin acknowledges there was no written agreement, he provides little reason to believe that whatever communication they had met the requirements for a contract. He does provide, in arguing for breach of contract where he is the aggrieved party, a much better (but still far from complete) argument for fraud where attendees were the aggrieved party. In addition to an actual contract, breach would depend on something he strongly implies did not occur, to wit, an actual disinvitation by the organizers. It's clear that his contact wanted Martin to voluntarily back out based on the conflict created by the threatened boycott by other speakers, and Martin seems to describe himself agreeing to do so to make things easy for his contact. That's a change by mutual agreement, not a breach. > The speakers who refused to speak if I spoke are guilty of tortious interference. Assuming the required relationship (which may be disputable), Martin seems to establish interference, but not the independently wrongful action that would make it tortious. Also, this is cute: > I promised him I would not mention his name or the name of the conference on line. But then: > So, this time, I’ll let the legal options rest. Instead, I’m offering a virtual free talk at 10:00 AM CDT, on September 21st, the first day of the conference. So, you've pretty much guaranteed that the conference, and probably your contact since knowing the conference will make that not too hard for people to deduce, will be publicly identified online soon, even if not under your byline. |