| 单词 | Unlawful interference with contract |
| 释义 | 非法侵擾合約 A tort arising when one person by unlawful means intentionally induces a second person to commit a breach of an existing contract against a third person or prevents or hinders the performance of that contract, so that the third person suffers damage: Greig v Insole, World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Insole [1978] 3 All ER 449, 1 WLR 302. The first person commits a wrong actionable at the suit of the third person, unless the inducement is justifiable: Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435, 1 All ER 142 (HL). The essential elements are: direct interference, or indirect interference coupled with the use of unlawful means; the defendant’s knowledge of the relevant contract; that the defendant must have intended to interfere with it; that the plaintiff has suffered more than nominal damage: Gregg v Insole [1978] 1 WLR 302. A negligent interference with a contract does not constitute this tort: Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 3 All ER 801 (HL). The element of intent needed to constitute is sufficiently established if it be proved that the defendants intended the party procured to bring the contract to an end by breach of it if there were no way of bringing it to an end lawfully: Emerald Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691. This principle is equally applicable to a situation in which defendants threaten to do harm to claimants by unlawful means, even though those unlawful means do not involve inducing the breach of a contract that has already been concluded: Inshore Services (International) Ltd v NFFO Services Ltd & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1722 (CA). 當某一人以非法手段蓄意誘使某第二者針對第三者違反現有的合約，或妨礙或阻撓履行該合約時所引起的侵權行為，使該第三者蒙受損失：Greig v Insole, World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Insole [1978] 3 All ER 449, 1 WLR 302。該第一人犯有過失，該第三者可提出訴訟，除非該誘因是有理由支持的：Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435, 1 All ER 142（上議院）。必要的元素有：直接的侵擾，或非直接的侵擾加上使用非法的手段；被告人知悉有關的合約；該被告人必是已有意圖侵擾合約，該原告人蒙受的損害超逾象徵式的損害：Gregg v Insole [1978] 1 WLR 302。疏忽地侵擾合約不構成此等侵權行為：Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 3 All ER 801（上議院）。「意圖」是構成非法侵擾合約的必要元素，若可證明該被告人意圖令締約方以違約的方式促致該合約被終止，因為無任何方法合法地終止該合約，則足以確立「意圖」：Emerald Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691。此原則於以下情況下同樣適用：當被告人威脅以違法的手段傷害申索人，縱使該等違法的手段不涉及促使違反一份已簽訂的合約：Inshore Services (International) Ltd v NFFO Services Ltd & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1722（上訴法庭）。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。