I'm not sure that analogies between duress and tortious wrongdoing are

completely misplaced.

The tort of intimidation was "invented" by Salmond in 1907. Later

cases on two party and three party intimidation have relied on

Salmond's formulation. Salmond himself relied on Hawkins J's advice in

Allen v Flood, which suggested that such a tort existed by reference

to the criminal law of menaces and the action for duress. Although

Jason was concerned with conspiracy, not intimidation, the latter

shows that the law of torts is not wholly insulated from the action

for restitution arising from duress. It would be surprising if a tort

which was itself recognised by analogy with duress should not pay heed

in its development to the evolution of duress.

Best wishes

James

On 20 April 2010 08:10, Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

>

> 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

>

>