and abetting) for a tort that they otherwise could not commit against plaintiff. Under Oregon law, a civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Rather, it is a theory of mutual agency under which the acts of each of the conspirators are imputed to the other members for purposes of tort liability. The joint liability that arises from the acts of others is predicated on an agreement or meeting of the minds to accomplish an unlawful purpose, or a purpose not in itself unlawful by unlawful means, that results in an injury to another. Bonds v. Landers, 279 Or 169, 174-75, 566 P2d 513 (1977). Thus, in the absence of a statutory violation, a conspiracy is not tortious unless the underlying act itself is tortious. See Bliss v. Southern Pacific Co. et al, 212 Or 634, 642, 321 P2d 324 (1958) (<HOLDING>). Thus, any discussion about conspiracy must
holding that an alleged conspiracy to bring about a termination of a lease was not tortious when an alleged coconspirator could terminate the lease as a matter of contract right recognizing that a lease providing for renewal at the termination of the lease did not require the lessee to exercise the option before the lease expired nor did it require renewal at the precise hour of termination but gave the lessee a reasonable time after the termination of the lease in which to make his election holding that the damage for tenancy at sufferance during the holdover period was the monthly rent under the lease versus the apartments fair market value because the lease contained a provision requiring lease payments beyond the lease term holding contract to be a mineral lease holding that former employees of a brokerage firm who had a contractual right to a share of any commission received by the firm upon extension of a lease were not entitled to a share of the commission received when the landlord and tenant entered an amendment to the lease which extended the duration but also added new terms this was a new lease not an extension of the prior lease