Colleagues:

I was wondering if anyone had a view on the following. I am trying to

pinpoint the difference on a conceptual level between competition as

envisaged in a case like Mogul Steamships and extortion/lawful act

duress.  In a case like Mogul the defendant injures someone else

financially in order to bring about a profit for himself and the court

concludes that so long as the defendant's ultimate gain is primary goal

then there is no liability. In an extortion case, the defendant

threatens to injure someone else financially in order to bring about a

profit for himself yet this is always a wrong even if the defendant's

primary goal is his or her gain.  What explains the difference between

the two? Does anyone have any thoughts?

Sincerely,

--

Jason Neyers

Associate Professor of Law

Faculty of Law

University of Western Ontario

N6A 3K7

(519) 661-2111 x. 88435