A gain transferred as a result of threats of harm (even if lawful harm) is

recoverable. (Threats to withhold beneifts are not threats of harm.) Loss

which is not wrongfully inflicted is not recoverable, even where

intentionally and pointlessly caused.

I am not sure I understand the question. They are just not the same sort

of claim at all. Duress is nothing to do with wrongdoing. It is a bit like

asking what explains the difference between bicycles and cheese.

best

Rob

> 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

>

>

--

Robert Stevens

Professor of Commercial Law

University College London