Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/359

A PROPOSED NEW DEFINITION OF A TORT. 339 ful one? Was the act of inducing a breach of contract a natural outgrowth or incident of such relation? Now, there is no refer- ence whatever, in the points of counsel or in any of the elaborate opinions in the case, to the circumstance that the relation of the defendant to the plaintiff was that oi trade competitor. In the view we have taken, the main question for consideration in Lumley v. Gye was simply whether the act of inducing a breach of contract created any liability, in view of such act being the natural out- growth or incident of the relation of trade competitor. The mat- ter was discussed on the proper ground in Bourlier v. Macauley,^ where it was held not actionable for a rival theatrical manager to induce an actress to break her engagement at another theatre, for the purpose of performing at his oivn. The court here follow Chambers v. Baldwin,'^ where it was held not actionable for a trade competitor to cause the breach of a contract to sell goods, witJi the design of himself becoming purchaser. The court say: *' Competi- tiojt in every branch of business being not only lawful, but necessary and proper, no person should or can upon principle be made liable in damages, for buying what may be freely offered for sale by a per- son having the right to sell, if done without fraud, merely because there may be a pre-existing contract between the seller and a rival in business." In Mogul Steafnship Co. v. McGregor, the relation of the parties committing the acts complained of, is not ignored, as in Lumley v. Gye. Nay, rather " the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner," and the de- cision is in effect on the ground that such acts were the natural outgrowths or incidents of the relation of trade competitor. Thus it was said in the Court of Appeal^ by Bowen, J., who, of all the judges rendering opinions in that celebrated case, seems to have most clearly comprehended the real point involved : " The defend- ants have done nothing more against the plaintiffs, than pursue to the bitter end a war of competition, waged in the interest of their own trade." That is to say, the injuries done by the defendants to the plaintiffs were but the natural outgrowths or incidents of the relation of trade competitor, and hence not actionable. Limitations of space forbid us to discuss at length the recent applications of the relation of trade competitor, as a justification of injuries produced by acts the natural outgrowths or incidents 1 91 Ky. 13s (1891). ' 91 Ky. 121 (1891). 8 23 Q. B. D. 598, 614 (1889). 44