•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 23 > Issue 5 (1925)

 

Abstract

Liability for inducing breach of contract, though of comparatively recent development in the field of torts, has grown so rapidly and with so little method or system in many decisions, that courts are somewhat anxious to find legitimate theories for checking the wholesale recoveries resulting from the application of the general principle. Justification for the tort shows some promise of being one of the checks for which the courts have been searching. The recent English case of Brimelow v. Casson (Aug. 1294) 93 L. J. Rep. 256, sheds some light on the problem of justification. In that case the plaintiff was the manager of a road show which employed several chorus girls on a percentage scale of wages with a minimum of £1 10s. per week. Several duly registered actor's unions had formed a committee to set minimum wage rates, and the defendants as members of this committee had concluded that £z 10s. was the smallest wage for which this service could be performed and still permit the actors to live decently. Having been informed that at least one of the plaintiff's chorus girls was living in immoral relations with a male member of the cast to augment her meager wages, the defendants, with the avowed intention of driving the plaintiff out of business, induced theater-owners to break their contracts with the plaintiff. In a suit for damages, the defendants pleaded justification, and it was held that there was sufficient justification, for the defendants were privileged to prevent the plaintiff from conducting his business in such a way as to cause immorality among his employees, and this privilege sprang from the defendants' duty to their calling and to the public.

Download

Share

COinS