Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:19

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Millar v Bassey and OBG

Dear Colleagues:

I am having difficulty figuring out why Lord Hoffmann in OBG considers the Bassey case to have been wrongly decided (at [43]). I can see the point he is making between consequences that are the end you are pursuing and consequences that are merely foreseeable; but the (presumed) facts in Bassey were that the breach was actually known by her to be inevitable. This seems to make the breach a necessary means to her end (whatever that was) and therefore is intentional on his definition.

Am I missing something?

I know that there might be other reasons why the case is wrong (i.e. she didn't procure the breach but merely caused it) but I don't see why it is wrong on the intention point.

----
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>