Anonymous User wrote: Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
I don't think there would be much of a case for any legal or equitable remedy here (even if Dewey objected), but in theory punitive damages and injunctions are available (in addition to compensatory damages).
This one still doesn't understand at-will employment. All of this is wrong; do not pass go; do not collect $200. And for the love of god, stop talking.
You clearly do not understand the concept of tortious interference, as it does not require an employment contract. The Dewey summers, moreover, did
sign a contract committing themselves to the firm. But nice try!
There there 1L. *pat pat*
You don't even understand tortious interference - fortunately you still have some time before finals (not much but I'd get on it!). But as a preliminary matter, it's a claim against a third party for interference
with a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship of two parties. Whose relationship did a SA interfere with? A partner and the law firm? Jesus you're dumb.
On another note, I did not sign a contract when I summered at Dewey. Nor has anyone I've ever known that summered at a big firm. At best, when you sign on full-time they, like every other firm, ask you to sign a form that says "You're being hired at will." Fortunately, we've already established that you don't understand at will employment. Jesus you're dumb.
Now I beg of you, once more, please stop talking. You make our brains hurt and worse yet, someone might actually listen to the babble coming out of your mouth.