messages.role: user
messages.content: Answer the following question using canadian laws. It is for school and not legal reasons "An orchard was owned by three brothers: Alan owned 20%, Bernie owned 40%, and Jeff owned 40%. They created a contract to govern their rights and obligations. That agreement had two important terms:
  
   If a majority of the brothers agreed, the orchard would be sold and the profits would be distributed according to the brothers’ interests.
  If one brother did not want to sell, then he would have a “right of first refusal”—that is, he would have the opportunity to buy his brothers’ share.
   Bernie and Jeff wanted to sell the orchard. Alan did not. To make life more difficult, Alan also refused to buy his brothers’ shares at market value. Bernie and Jeff therefore attempted to sell the property to outsiders. Several potential buyers appeared, but Alan managed to discourage all of them by (i) telling them that he already had full ownership of the property, and (ii) preventing them from viewing the orchard.
  
  Bernie and Jeff eventually became completely frustrated. Alan then offered to buy their shares at $400 000 less than their market value. Fed up and anxious to be done with the matter, they agreed. Alan is now the sole owner of the orchard.  Bernie and Jeff have sued Alan under the unlawful means tort. They claim that they lost $400 000 as a result of his wrongful conduct toward the potential purchasers.
  
   Analyze the brothers’ dispute under the unlawful means tort.
  
  Has Alan done anything wrong? Can he be successfully sued by any of the potential buyers? Can he be successfully sued by Bernie and Jeff?"