This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Aspects Of Obligations Notes

Intentional Economic Torts Notes

Updated Intentional Economic Torts Notes

Aspects Of Obligations Notes

Aspects Of Obligations

Approximately 333 pages

Aspects Of Obligations notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes cover all the major LLB aspects cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These notes were formed directly from a reading of the cases and main texts and are vigorous, concise and very well written. Everything is conveniently split up by topic as you can see by th...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Aspects Of Obligations Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

the ‘sole defendant’ economic torts:

Lord Sumption & Lloyd Jones JSC BTA Bank v Krapunov 18 recognise that econ torts are major exception to rule that no duty in tort avoid causing econ loss

rule exists to allow competitive business - law must be careful when identifying point where such conduct ‘transgresses legitimate bounds’ - a task of ‘exceptional delicacy’

Never been that prominent & not unified - eclipsed by ‘upstart cousin’ (O’Sullivan) Hedley Byrne

but recent resurgence - new role in resolving boundaries of commercial ethics

origins in old-fashioned labour law

The 2 torts:

Intentionally inducing/procuring breach of contract - Lumley v Gye

  • opera singer induced to breach contract with L to sing at G theatre instead

    Intentionally causing loss by unlawful means - Allen v Flood

  • union officials said iron workers would stop working if ship-rites re-engaged - ER bowed to pressure so stopped work

  • no tort committed - no contract breached & no unlawful means - emphasised doing something with bad motive not a tort - no doctrine of rights etc

  • origins = Tarleton v M’Gawley 1790 captain of ship fired canon at another boat every time tried go to shore to trade - unlawful! (intimidation)

    During 20C confusion coz courts tried unify the 2 as a single ‘innominate tort’ - muddled their requirements & expanded remit

    relied on circular reasoning to treat Lumley as involving unlawful means - only unlawful coz inducing breach!

    Lumley extended to cover ‘interference’ with contract

    e.g Middlebrook Mushrooms v TGWU protest urging consumers not buy M products by TU - no breach/unlawfulness - overturned by CA

    also expanded liability from ‘intention’ to include mere ‘foreseeability’ - too far

    e.g Millar v Bassey - B pulled out of record deal causing co. break contracts with musos - they sued her & won in CA! Obvs she didn't intend cause them loss/breach etc

    Weir was v critical - upsetting doctrine of privity etc

    Remember, Eng has no doctrine of abuse of rights - contrast US decision (Tuttle v Buck) - there banker opened barbershop with aim of bankrupting the owner - held tortious - wouldn't be in England!

    in OBG v Allan 07 HL clarified & uncoupled the 2 torts - 3 conjoined appeals

    OBG: Ds appointed receivers of a floating charge which turned out be invalid - but in gf took control of C’s assets - argued unlawful means - no - nothing unlawful & no breach contract

    Mainstream Properties v Young: EEs (in breach of employ contract) diverted business opportunity to a co. they ran - D financed transaction - said he didn't believe would = breach - argued inducing breach - HL said no coz no intention procure breach (+ no UM) - overruled Millar!

    Note also relevant they approached him & not other way round

    Douglas v Hello no.3: OK mag exclusive contract for D & Zeta Jones wedding - Hello published pics surreptitiously taken - argued unlawful means but said wasn't - not much discussion

  1. inducing breach of contract

    Elements (largely) clarified by OBG but older cases also useful - HL confirmed is tort of secondary liability

    Thomas v Deakin said requirements = direct persuasion/procurement/inducement applied by TP to contract-breaker, with knowledge of contract & intention of bringing about its breach

  1. Inducement/Procurement

    orthodox view = direct persuasion - where indirect -> unlawful means

    Lord Hoffman OBG suggested test = did D’s acts of encouragement/threat/persuasion have sufficient causal link with breach to attract accessory liability?

    seems broader - may cause confusion - Carty

    Weir considered ‘persuasion’ key - seems be what court in OBG thought too - mere interference no!

    court rejected indirect intervention & prevention of performance (there look at UM)

    Mere advice insufficient - Lewis v Yeeles

    can be difficult line draw - Neil LJ in Mushrooms noted could infringe Art 10 if go too far

    Hart & Honoré say inducement about making a given course of action more desirable in eyes of another than otherwise would've been

    Mummery LJ in Lewis v Yeeles CA said about persuading/causing act in a way otherwise wouldn't have done

    The ‘inconsistent transaction fallacy’/facilitating breach = suggested enough by Jenkins LJ in Thomson v Deakin

  • took support from BMTA v Salvadori - D bought car from C’s co-contractor knowing this breached obligation not to sell within year - held liable - mere inconsistency/facilitation

  • approved in Rickless v United Artists

  • applied in Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel 11 - judge thought arguable - declined strike out

  • under contract A not allowed sell L property, went bust & sold to M

    note GWK & ARM v Dunlop Rubber 26 D put their tyres on GWK car - placed them passively in breach with ARM - held liable - criticised in OBG - Hoffman said no active procurement, suggested UM instead

    comes from ‘interference’ confusion

    note Union Traffic v TGWU CA said picketing could = procurement = encouraging others breach contract

    One Money Mail v Ria 15 CA W approached R, yet R nonetheless liable for inducing breach - R knew of the exclusivity clause in the contract thus knew would be breached - more than ‘active steps’

    Carty: BMTA weak authority coz appeared be organised attack on C - seems be actual inducement

    Hart & Honoré say D’s conduct needs be at least 1 of influencing factors in C’s decision breach

    contrast Batts Combe Quarry v Ford - mere acceptance of gift not procuring

    There is an argument that this line of cases ‘impliedly’ overruled by OBG but not mentioned

    Meretz Investments v ACP Toulson LJ seems deny liability for inconsistent transactions - D’s conduct must have operated ‘on the will’ of contracting party

    Some uncertainty coz of overlap with Equity- inconsistent dealing etc - Carty says unhelpful

    O’Sullivan seems distinguish ‘knowingly making an inconsistent dealing’ - entirely consistent with OBG!

    Lord Macnauhten (Allen v Flood) - D must be person who ‘pulls the strings’

    Carty says inconsistent transactions shouldn't be...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Aspects Of Obligations Notes.