[dragonwriter]

> Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to being sued, depending on the circumstances under which it happens.

True.

> It doesn't mean they're breaking any laws.

Yes, it does. Civil law is law (and a larger portion of the law than criminal law is), and torts are as much violations of law as crimes.

[fluoridation]

Fair enough, but still, the violation arises from the circumstances surrounding the act, not from the act itself. You could very well place a cone on top of someone's car at every available opportunity without running into this tort issue.

[dragonwriter]

> Fair enough, but still, the violation arises from the circumstances surrounding the act, not from the act itself.

That's an arbitrary distinction you could equally apply to any civil or criminal violation of the law; its “the circumstancrs surrounding the act not the act itself” that distinguishes murder from perfectly legal self-defense.

Its the circumstances surrounding picking up an item and walking off with it that distinguish lawful activity from theft.

[fluoridation]

There's a definite distinction there, though, with regards to immediacy of cause and effect. "Picking up an item and walking off" is a crime or not depending on circumstances that are present at the moment the item is picked up, even if both you and I don't realize the item doesn't belong to me; the same is true for self-defense vs. murder. If I do something to you as innocuous as placing a traffic cone on the hood of your car that triggers a "for want of a nail" situation that ends up in someone terminating a business partnership with you, that's something that neither you nor I could have predicted at the time I did whatever it was to you.