Replies to post #107203 on Marani Brands Inc. (MRIB)

[DJ Ponder]

IF they decided to follow through?
IF, as in MEXICO, THE DR, AND BRAZIL???
That kind of follow through????
ROFLMAO
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

...if Marani decided to follow through on their statement.

[Matthew Berg]

A year has passed and as with all MRIB claims, all talk. Just Margrit's attempt to say the true and factual claims about MRIB being a scam should be ignored. There was never any intention of going after anyone or taking any legal action.

And again what action could be considered tortious interference? There's two categories and I fail to see how either applies to any events with respect to MRIB. You have contractual interference and business interference. In either case it involves the direct action of a third party, the tortfeasor, interfering with an agreement between two parties. It can be contractual in which the tortfeasor causes one party to the contract to not perform and then there's the business interference in which the tortfeasor prevents one party from doing business with another. I just can't see an instance of this taking place with respect to MRIB. And given existing MRIB business and contract value there is little to nothing MRIB could make claim to financially in the form of actual damages.

[specutator]

If one had called a retailer or distributor of Marani vodka and stated that the company was a "scam" or that the CEO was a "liar and a thief" and the contract between Marani and the retailer or distributor was terminated, Marani could certainly claim tortious interference in their business. Not only that, but the retailer or distributor could also file a claim against the caller if it is determined that there was an 'improper' motive behind the statement which caused them to lose business.

Just saying...