Quote:
Originally Posted by WiredGuy
You realize you actually have to go through the process of proving sales were lost and in a malicious manner. The fact that a surfer has their toolbar installed isn't malicious, it was a concentual install.
WG
|
actually thats not entirely true
----------------
The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 217 defines trespass to chattels as ?intentionally? dispossessing another of the chattel, or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.? Harm to personal property or diminution of its quality, condition or value as a result of a defendant?s use can also result in liability under § 218(b) of the Restatement. In other words, any action that intentionally interferes with a plaintiff?s possessory interest in his personal property may be subject to a trespass to chattels claim.
The trespass to chattels cause of action, frequently asserted in recent years against Internet advertisers and email spammers, is
often included in complaints against spyware companies.
To summarize, the basic elements of a claim of trespass to chattels are: 1) the lack of the plaintiff?s consent to the trespass, 2) interference or intermeddling with possessory interest, and 3) the intentionality of the defendant?s actions.
Actual damage is not necessarily a required element of a trespass to chattels claim. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Hawkins, 101 N.C. App. 529, 532, 400 S.E.2d 472, 475 (1999).