It certainly looks to me like a scenario where a tort action with a direct consequences remoteness rule would provide a better answer than the alternates (though, I can see others disputing ‘better’); if intimidation has a reasonable foreseeability remoteness rule, recovery could be more problematic (but not unarguable)

 

 

 

**CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL**
This email originated from outside of the University of Limerick. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe.

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

Assume that A and B have a contract for the rental of a venue for a wedding reception. Hours before the reception, B threatens to lock A out unless A makes an additional payment of $1500.  A makes the payment, but in so doing is rendered unable to invest in a valuable business opportunity that turns out to be wildly successful (ie losing a profit of $10,000).  Is there a way for A to recover the $10,000?

 

An action for duress would only led to a return of the $1500.

 

An action for breach of contract would seemingly fail as the contract was not actually breached (the venue was provided) and the anticipatory repudiation was not accepted by A (for good reason). Even if one could argue that there was a breach of some duty imposed by Bhasin v Hrynew it seems likely that the damages would run afoul of the Hadley v Baxendale remoteness rule.

 

A claim in 2-party intimidation would arguably fail, at least in Canada, since our Supreme Court has intimated that a threatened breach of contract is not unlawful means for the tort of intimidation. Instead the court stated that A should sue for breach of contract instead which would lead to no recovery (see above).

 

Does this seem right? If this is correct, and one thinks that there should be recovery, what is the means of recovery? I am leaning towards thinking that the SCC was wrong to suggest that breaches of contract can never be unlawful means for two-party intimidation, but am very interested in your thoughts.   

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)