Dear Colleagues:

Those of you interested in the Economic Torts will be interested in Eldridge v. Johndrow, http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Eldridge150130.pdf where the Utah Supreme Court decided that an improper purpose is not enough for liability, instead there had to be unlawful means. It thereby refused to follow the (in)famous case of Tuttle v Buck (ie, Quinn v Leathem without the conspiracy).

In a nutshell, the court found that the doctrine was unworkable in the American legal system since questions of predominate purpose are questions of fact that are to be left with the jury and therefore are not amenable to meaningful appellate review.  The danger being that any evidence of malice could lead to liability based on a jury's moral sympathies and there was little an appellate court could do about.

Sincerely,

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