Search Results

This chapter explores the history and ingredients of the tort of malicious falsehood. It would appear that the tort though developed from a group of related torts should now be viewed as unified in principle and application. The key ingredient is malice and the chapter explores the different meanings of this concept, though noting that the typical case will involve denigration or disparagement. This tort is of limited use and is largely overshadowed by statutory provisions relating to ‘threats’ and comparative advertising. The important issue of free speech has shaped this tort and confined its application is also debated. Finally, the relationship of this tort to the unlawful means tort and the torts of defamation and passing off is analysed.

This chapter explores the potential future developments of the misrepresentation economic torts: deceit, malicious falsehood, and passing off. Deceit and its satellite actions — the action for bribery and the actions for dishonest assistance — though useful play a limited role in the legal control of economic activity. However, there are possible areas of expansion revealed for the torts of malicious falsehood and passing off that could edge the common law liability closer to a more generalised unfair competition action. This is particularly the case with the tort of passing off: either it could become a more generalised tort of commercial misrepresentation or even transform from a misrepresentation tort into one that protects valuable intangibles.

This chapter introduces the economic torts, i.e., those torts that have as their name suggests the primary function of protecting claimants' economic interests. They include the general economic torts of inducing breach of contract, the unlawful means tort, intimidation, lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy and the misrepresentation economic torts of deceit, malicious falsehood, and passing off. The tort of negligence is also discussed as in exceptional circumstances it may perform the function of an economic tort but it is noted that its rationale is different from the economic torts. Unlike negligence, which looks to dependency, the economic torts look to unlawful acts and offer the common law rules of the economic game. The policy issue for all these torts is whether the courts, in the absence of an action for unfair competition, should adopt an interventionist or abstentionist policy in relation to imposing liability.