Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

ECONOMIC TORTS (Inducing breach of contract (Rationale and interests…

- - - - Procurement must be direct and effective cause of contracting party's decision. Not enough if mere agreement with another's decision to breach / draw attention to facts. Can see circumstantial evidence (Abani Trading)
    - - Knows of contract, yet deals with contract breaker in a way inconsistent with that contract
      - British Motor Trade Assoc v Salvadori: Plt required all purchasers of new cars to undertake not to resell cars except as permitted. Def purchased cars from 3rd party while knowing it violated undertakings.
      - Academic criticism: Stranger's conduct is not a significant cause of breach. No active inducement, only minimal interference, since it is contract breaker's own act that caused the breach.
- - - - Direct: Unlawfully prevent a contracting party from performing obligations. Indirect: pressure on stranger to contract, to commit wrongful act against party with intention of disabling party from fulfilling obligations.
      - GWK v Dunlop Rubber: Def unlawfully substituted plt's tyres with his own.
      - JT Stratford v Lindley: Def procured breach of hiring contracts between plt and customers. Did not approach directly to persuade hirers them to default, but prohibited trade union members from handling cargo of hirers loaded on barges owned by plt.
- - - - Crofter Hand-Woven Harris Tweed v Veitch
        P’s action for conspiracy failed as D’s action can be justified as their predominant purpose was to protect the tweed industry on which the wages of the workers depended
        No need shared common purpose, just each has legitimate interest to gain.
      - Quah Kay Tee: Needs to be predominant purpose to injure, not same as intention. No tort if damage is just foreseeable consequence.
  - - - Beckkett v Deutsche Bank AG: Not every unlawful act = unlawful means.
      - Quah Kay Tee: that a fraudulent preference allegedly perpetuated by a debtor against his creditor could not constitute unlawful means since this was covered by legislation (legislation - no private action - not actionable)
      - OBG v Allan criteria by Lord Hoffman
        
        ... unlawful means only if such acts are actionable by the 3rd party. Unless the reason why the act is not actionable is because the 3rd party has not suffered any loss. No cause of action - not unlawful.
        
        The unlawful act must interfere with the 3rd party’s freedom to deal with the claimant (even if dealings less valuable).