Tortious Interference with Contract: Where's the Line?
torts general beginner mcq_debateI'm discussing this with my friend, but we can't agree on MCQ 3 from Mulla's chapter on Liability for Interference with Contractual Relations. Here it is:
"If an unlawful act of A has caused B to break a contract with C, A will be liable for trespass if (a) he knew or had reason to believe that B would break the contract, (b) the unlawful act of A was not merely an innocent mistake, or (c) the unlawful act of A was not merely trespass on private property."
My friend says the correct answer is (b), but I think it's (c). My friend cites Ruiya v. East India Railway Co. where the court held that trespass on private property was not intentional. I'm like, what about the intention behind the act? Doesn't that matter?
You decide!
2 comments
2 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
"Bro, tortious interference with contract is all about breaching the contractual rights of another. Now, the line here is between mere advice or persuasion vs inducing action that breaches the contract. If one person is just advising or persuading another to breach a contract, it might not be interference. But inducing action, say by bribing someone to breach, is a different story. It's a thin line, but courts usually look at the intention behind the action.
Agreed that Tortious Interference with Contract is a delicate issue, but yeh kya hai (what is it)? The line is not where someone just helps a party breach a contract. It's when they use underhand methods, like blackmail or coercion, to sabotage the contract. We can't just call it interference if someone's using legit means to protect their interest. The key is in the intentions and methods used.