UNIT 10

PASSING OFF

Passing off is a common law tort that protects the goodwill of a business from misrepresentation. It occurs when one party misrepresents their goods or services as those of another, causing confusion among consumers. See the case of Coca-Cola Co. v. Pepsico Inc. (Nigerian Case) which involved the use of a similar name and logo, leading to confusion among consumers and the court found that the misrepresentation caused significant damage to Coca-Cola’s goodwill and the case of L.O. Ayodele v. Jos International Breweries (Nigeria) where the court addressed the issue of product names and packaging that were deceptively similar to an established brand, which led to confusion and damage. The elements of passing off includes the following;

1. Goodwill: this is where the claimant must establish that their business has goodwill or reputation attached to it. This goodwill must be sufficiently established so that the misrepresentation causes confusion among the public.
2. Misrepresentation: this is where the defendant must make a false representation that leads or is likely to lead the public to believe that their goods or services are those of the claimant.
3. Damage: this is where the claimant must prove that they have suffered or are likely to suffer damage due to the defendant’s misrepresentation.

CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy in tort law refers to an agreement between two or more parties to commit an unlawful act or to commit a lawful act in an unlawful manner that results in harm to another party. See the case of Adeleke v. Olagunju (Nigeria) which dealt with parties conspiring to disrupt the business operations of a claimant and the court examined the nature of the agreement and the resultant harm and the case of Oyekunle v. Ige (Nigeria) which involved a conspiracy to commit fraud and the court assessed the validity of the conspiracy claim and the extent of damage suffered. The elements of conspiracy includes the following;

1. Agreement: this is where there must be a deliberate agreement between parties to achieve an unlawful objective.
2. Acting on the agreement: this is where the parties must act on their agreement in a way that causes harm to the claimant.
3. Intent: this is where the conspirators must have intended to cause harm or knew that their actions were likely to result in harm.

INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD

Injurious falsehood, also known as trade libel or business disparagement, involves making false statements about another’s business or products that cause financial harm. See the case of Fola Alabi v. John Holt Plc (Nigeria) which involved false statements made about the quality of a claimant’s goods, leading to financial loss and the court examined the intent behind the statements and the resulting damage and the case of Bola Ahmed Tinubu v. Lagos State Government (Nigeria) which also involved false allegations affecting the claimant’s business reputation and the court focused on the malice involved and the financial harm caused. The elements of injurious falsehood includes the following;

1. False statement: this is where the defendant must make a false statement about the claimant’s goods, services, or business.
2. Intentional malice: this is where the statement must be made with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth.
3. Damage: this is where the claimant must prove that the false statement caused actual financial damage to their business.

INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS

Interference with contracts occurs when a third party intentionally disrupts an existing contract between two other parties, causing one of the parties to breach the contract and resulting in harm. See the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ogboh (Nigeria) which dealt with interference by a third party that led to a breach of contract and financial loss for the claimant and the case of UACN Property Development Company Ltd. v. Jimoh (Nigeria) where the court addressed issues of intentional interference with contractual relations and the resulting damage to the claimant’s business. The elements of interference with contracts includes the following;

1. Existing contract: this is where there must be an existing, legally binding contract between two parties.
2. Interference: this is where the defendant must intentionally interfere with the contract, knowing that their actions are likely to cause a breach.
3. Damage: this is where the claimant must prove that the interference resulted in a breach of the contract and caused harm.

TERMINATION OF TORTS

Termination of torts refers to the ending or cessation of a tortious act or wrongful conduct. This can occur through various legal remedies or actions that resolve or mitigate the harm caused. See the case of Alabi v. Lagos State Government (Nigeria) which involved the cessation of tortious acts through a court order and the settlement of damages and the case of Oni v. Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (Nigeria) where the court addressed the resolution of tort claims through settlement and injunction, leading to the termination of the tortious conduct. The forms of termination includes the following;

1. Cease and desist: this is where the defendant may be ordered to stop the tortious conduct through a court injunction.
2. Settlement: this is where the parties may reach a settlement agreement to resolve the dispute and end the tortious behavior.
3. Damages: this is where payment of damages or compensation can also act as a form of termination by addressing the harm caused.

CONCLUSION

These notes provide a comprehensive overview of each topic within the context of Nigerian legal principles and case law.