Hazel Carty
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199546749
- eISBN:
- 9780191594946
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546749.003.0007
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
The orthodox analysis of the economic torts focuses on three-party, indirect liability. Both the tort of inducing breach of contract and the unlawful means tort envisage the use of a third party or ...
More
The orthodox analysis of the economic torts focuses on three-party, indirect liability. Both the tort of inducing breach of contract and the unlawful means tort envisage the use of a third party or intermediary in order to intentionally harm the claimant. However, after the House of Lords' decision in Total Network a key issue for debate is whether economic tort liability in the 21st century extends to the direct intentional infliction of economic harm, without the use of an intermediary. This chapter analyses whether such economic two-party liability exists beyond the tort of intimidation (where it appears to be accepted) and the controversies that would follow from such two-party liability namely: what constitutes ‘unlawful means’ in such a two-party setting; what impact two-party economic tort liability would have on the tort/contract divide; and what the rationale for two-party liability would be compared to the rationale for three-party economic tort liability.Less
The orthodox analysis of the economic torts focuses on three-party, indirect liability. Both the tort of inducing breach of contract and the unlawful means tort envisage the use of a third party or intermediary in order to intentionally harm the claimant. However, after the House of Lords' decision in Total Network a key issue for debate is whether economic tort liability in the 21st century extends to the direct intentional infliction of economic harm, without the use of an intermediary. This chapter analyses whether such economic two-party liability exists beyond the tort of intimidation (where it appears to be accepted) and the controversies that would follow from such two-party liability namely: what constitutes ‘unlawful means’ in such a two-party setting; what impact two-party economic tort liability would have on the tort/contract divide; and what the rationale for two-party liability would be compared to the rationale for three-party economic tort liability.
Hazel Carty
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199546749
- eISBN:
- 9780191594946
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546749.003.0005
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
This chapter explores the history and modern form of this tort. Two key issues surrounding this tort remain controversial as was highlighted by the recent decisions in OBG and Total Network. These ...
More
This chapter explores the history and modern form of this tort. Two key issues surrounding this tort remain controversial as was highlighted by the recent decisions in OBG and Total Network. These are the relationship between this tort and the unlawful means tort, and the scope and implications of the two-party version of this tort (and in particular whether a threatened breach of contract should constitute an unlawful threat for this tort). The chapter, therefore, links into the discussion in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7. It argues that the two-party form of this tort does not provide the seed for a general development of two-party economic torts, but rather that two-party liability in the tort of intimidation is a separate area of tort liability, a necessary supplement to existing tort liability.Less
This chapter explores the history and modern form of this tort. Two key issues surrounding this tort remain controversial as was highlighted by the recent decisions in OBG and Total Network. These are the relationship between this tort and the unlawful means tort, and the scope and implications of the two-party version of this tort (and in particular whether a threatened breach of contract should constitute an unlawful threat for this tort). The chapter, therefore, links into the discussion in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7. It argues that the two-party form of this tort does not provide the seed for a general development of two-party economic torts, but rather that two-party liability in the tort of intimidation is a separate area of tort liability, a necessary supplement to existing tort liability.
