My 2c worth from a wet early morning in Wales.

1. This looks highly implausible to me: why prefer the risks of a cause of action in tort against C to the prospect of continuing profits from B's performance?

2. The more general point is whether it's permissible to hope someone commits a tort against you without taking steps to stop it. I can't see why not. Suppose someone tells me that my (rich) ex is coming to take away my BMW wrongly thinking it forms part of her half of the spoils. I could take steps to stop her, but don't, because I've been trying to sell the car without success and would like nothing more than a cast-iron claim in conversion against a solvent defendant. This doesn't seem objectionable to me; and I can't see any reason to mitigate her liability.

3. If there is to be any qualification of liability, the defendant should, like any other defendant, have to prove that they can invoke either contributory negligence or estoppel. If they can't that's tough: that's what the law of tort is about.


Andrew

Dear all

I would be very grateful for any comments or relevant authorities you
may be able to point me to concerning the following hypothetical:

A has a contract with B.

A becomes aware that C will enter an inconsistent contract with B, in
circumstances where C will be held to have procured B's breach of
contract (because of the knowledge of C's agent).

A knows that C (the principle) would not induce a breach of A's
contract, if it knew of the contract between A and B.

However, A is careful not to inform C's principle, so that the tort
will be committed.

Once the tort has been committed, A takes proceedings against C.

Comments welcome.

Ger