Interference with Contr. Relations
A theatrical manager persistently paid his chorus girls so little that they were forced to supplement their earnings by immorality.
Members of an actors' protection association boycotted the manager by inducing theatre proprietors not to engage him.
They were justified in doing so.
(roughly) They had legitimate interests; their action was, on the whole, reasonable.
It is not enough, however, to prove that one is acting in the interests of one's association, nor is it enough that the defendant was prompted by impersonal and disinterested motives.
Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd. v. Gardner 1968
In the interest of their union the officials sought to induce their members (newspaper retailers) to stop taking supplies from wholesalers who were themselves under contract to buy the papers from the plaintiff newspaper proprietors.
An injunction was granted against the officials.
Their action was unlawful as a breach of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956.
This indirect attack upon the wholesaler's contract with the plaintiffs came within the ambit of the tort.
Provided that 'unlawful means' are employed to interfere with the contract, the interference with contractual relations need not be direct.
Compare: TORQUAY HOTEL CO. LTD. v. COUSINS (1969)
The defendant (Guy) induced Joanna Wagner to break her contract to sing for the plaintiff, an impresario (Lumley).
It was held to be a tort maliciously to induce a breach of contract.
LUMLEY v. WAGNER (1852) (Contract Law)
NOT bettini v. guy (1876) !!!
Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Cousins 1969
Union officials threatened to stop fuel oil supplies by Esso to the Imperial Hotel by calling upon tanker men to refuse delivery to the Imperial Hotel.
Had this actually been done, the tort of interference would have been committed even though the contract attacked would not have been broken.
There was a clause in it excusing Esso from delivery in the case of labour disputes, which in fact occurred. Though this would not have broken the Esso/Imperial contract, it would have been interfered with.
Interference need not amount to actual breach.
Compare: DAILY MIRROR NEWSPAPER LTD. v. GARDNER (1968)