21.2.6 Interference by one person with another person`s contract may be justified in exceptional circumstances. The exact scope of this defence is unclear, but it is generally believed that it is a close defence that can only be based on a careful examination of all the facts. Cases where the defence has been successful include those where the interference is the inevitable result of the assertion of a pre-existing right or where it is necessary to protect public morals. 21.2.7 The offence of breach has been extended to other types of enforceable obligations. Thus, a person who causes another person to violate a legal or equitable obligation may also commit an enforceable offense. The trial judge emphasized Mr. Wolff with contracts (and their usual conditions) with freight forwarders; he knew other parts of the supply chain and had many years of experience in importing goods. The content of his emails indicated that he “understood” that his agreement with the respondent`s representatives was “outside the contractual structure” and that it would give rise to future claims. Together, these facts meant that he “had to know” the existence of the agency contract and its terms and conditions, and that the agents had violated it. This contrasted with the TFG Director of Shipping, who had no training in the areas of activity or mechanisms of international trade and acted only in a “ministerial” function; He may have had some knowledge of the existence of the agency contract and the fact that he ruled out early dismissal, but he did not have the essential additional level of knowledge to place it in the “must know” category. A general manager of the company was personally responsible for initiating a breach of a commercial agency contract by obtaining the early release of goods imported from freight forwarders against immediate payment of their fees. The director`s experience in hiring carriers meant that he had to know that such an agreement was outside the usual contractual structure, or at least he was ruthlessly indifferent to whether the agents were violating their agency contract: Michael Fielding Wolff v Trinity Logistics USA Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2765.
This judgment on the tort of breach of contract shows how industry knowledge can help repair a party with the necessary knowledge of the existence and terms of a contract that it would have caused. 21.5.4 In principle, it is assumed that legal obligations enforceable by means of criminal proceedings can only be enforced in this way. However, there are two exceptional situations in which such offences could constitute “illegal means” for civil actions. First, a complainant belonging to that group may claim that his interests have been unlawfully harmed when a legal provision of their effective interpretation is imposed in favour of a group of persons. Second, where a legal provision establishes a public right, a complainant may invoke the breach of the provision in civil proceedings if he or she has suffered a particular prejudice beyond that which goes beyond that of the general public. Judith Prakash J first argued that a person must be aware of the irregular defects of a transaction, so ordinary honest people would consider it a violation of honest behavior if they did not inquire about them: George Raymond Zage III and another against Ho Chi Kwong and another [2010] 2 SLR 589 to [22]. In this context, a two-step analysis was conducted: (a) What did the person know about the transaction; and (b) participation in the transaction with that knowledge violated ordinary standards ([41]-[42]). One.
Plea: Where a party causes another party to breach a contractual obligation to a third party For the second claim, Prakash J. held that the defendants must have intended to knowingly interfere with the plaintiff`s contractual rights and that the investigation was objective. Because they had dishonestly assisted JDD in breaking up a trust, it followed that the defendants had deliberately caused the breach of the terms of the bond when they had used the GST rebate to pay the costs to third parties ([90] and [92]). 21.3.2 The threat of A shall compel B to comply with A`s wishes in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences threatened by A. It is insufficient for A to carry out simple idle abuses of which B takes little or no account. The threat must also relate to illegal conduct, such as. B the commission of a criminal offence, an offence or a breach of contract. 21.2.4 It is essential that A`s inducement leads to the breach of B`s contractual obligation to C. However, this does not require proof that liability arises from the breach in question. It is therefore sufficient for it to be proved that B is in breach of its contractual obligation, but in fact does not assume any liability, for example on the basis of an effective indemnification clause. Prakash J.A. therefore concluded that the defendants must at least have presumed that the GST rebate was not intended for their free use.
It was also found that ordinary people would have considered this to be a violation of honest behavior if they had not asked other questions before the funds were sold. The defendants were responsible for unfair support ([61]). Mr Wolff put forward three pleas in law: (i) his agreement with the agents did not constitute an invitation; (ii) the High Court`s decision that it had to have “knowledge” of the commercial agency contract and its terms was not sufficient to prove the mental element of the offence, which had to be actual knowledge or blind recklessness; and (iii) the agency contract was concluded only after the alleged procurement acts. The court found that Mr. Wolff`s agreement with the officers constituted solicitation. The officers did not act with “benevolence” when they agreed to release the goods prematurely; This was a business decision, as they received continuous business from TFG accordingly and were promptly paid. The “bonus” offered by Mr. Wolff was clearly an important, if not the most important, incentive for the agents to break the agency contract.
The fact that the initial offer came from the agents was also irrelevant: Mr Wolff had offered a sufficiently tempting incentive (prompt payment of fees), and it was this “last step” that had led the agents to breach the agency contract. (2) Incitement must be a direct and effective cause of breach The remedies available for the tort or tort of causing a breach of contract in respect of the tort, breach of fiduciary duty and other obligations and unfair assistance must also be taken into account – because of their origins different from the common law or the law of equity, the range of remedies that may be available for breach of equitable obligations, conceptually from the use of common law obligations available for breaches. The possible difference was highlighted in Zim Integrated (at [24]). It is also questionable whether an inducement to breach of contract is also an inducement to breach a fiduciary duty arising from outside the contract. In the first case, can third parties invoke contractual provisions that seek to exclude their liability for losses, and if the case were instead raised on the basis of a breach of fiduciary duty, would such clauses not apply? These are interesting questions that should be examined in the future. First, would dishonest support or induced breach of contract be easier to prove, since simultaneous liability is possible between the two? It is suggested that the former seems to be easier to establish based on the ingredients that need to be identified.. .