What is the legal position a ing from that conduct? In the first place it is clear that any advertiser who " withdrew his advertisement for the next Year Book was clearly within his rights in so dong: the action of the defendant led to no breach of any contract between the plaintiffs and an advertiser.
The position has been variously named in the arguments, but I think it comes to this:—that the defendant has committed some actionable wrong by inducing or persuading the advertisers to do something to the actual dctriment of the plaintiffs' business. That cause of action, whether in the old terms it was one on the case or not, is known as a definite tort under certain circumstances. It most commonly comes into the books under the Trade Union cases, but the general principle is that a man is entitle ed to the protection of the law in carrying on his busines¢ against improper—interference with it. The leading case is the well-known one of Allen v. Flood 1898. A.' I quote from Lord Watson's speech: "There are iv my opinion two grounds only upon which a person who procures the act of another can be made legally responsible for its
ho will incur liability if he kno: consequences, In the first. place ingly and for his own ends intinees that other person to commit! an actionable wrong. In the second place, when the act induced is within the right of the immediate actor (as is the case under discussion before me now). and is therefore not wrongful in so far as he is concerned, it may yet be to the detriment of a third party; and in that case, accord: ing to the law laid down ky the majority in Lumley yr. Gue, the inducer mav be held liable if he can he shown to have procured his object by the use of illegal means directed against that! third party." That statement. of the law has recently been adoptet in the cases of. Davies Thomas 1920.1.Ch.217 and 1920. 2.Ch.isg (C.A. and Hedges v. Webb. 1920.2.Ch.70). It is stated in more or less the same words in recent text books; I refer to Halsbury's Laws: Pollock on Torts, and Jenks' Digest. I am content to state it as a correct proposition of the law to-day. The question in every case is whether "unlawful means" have been employed and no doubt the usual instances are these of coercion, undue pressure, ete. But I see no reason why unlawful means should be confined to matters such as these. The books (Pollock and Halsbury) certainly name deceit or misrepresentation. as determining factors in an action of this nature. And I cannot see any justice or equity: in refusing a cause of action to a man who is actually harmed in his business by the action of another who makes a communication to a third party deceiving him as to its origin and leading to actual damage. I am aware that I can find no case in the books tike this; but if a man, for instance, sends an abusive letter to a business house accompanied by documents that can rightly only come from some third -party, intending the recipient to believe that they did so come, ind damage thereupon results to him, it seems to me to be both justice and equity that protection should be afforded to the injured party. And that is exactly what happened here: the defendant sent this cirewlar with the duplicate contract hoping and intending recipients to believe that it came from the plai tiffs, the recipients thought the circular hac come from the plaintiffs (see evidence on both sides) and in consequence—they have acted to the damage of the plaintiffs. The tone of the circular was such that it was calculated to suggest to recipients that they should discontinue their adver-fisements which was the defendant's hope and wish; and I therefore hold that the plaintiffs have a cause of action he. If the defendant had acted openly and in his own name the position might well have been different, but here he deliberately chose to adopt the other method, and he must suffer—accordingly.
The mere sending of the dupti cate contracts was not unlawful or illegal; and the advertisers were fully within their rights in giving the notices they did. If the defendant had acted in hi own name in sending these circulars, I think no action could have been successfully brought against him for so doing. But he sent them anonymously, intending the recipients to think, as in fact they did think, that the plaintiffs had sent sent them. Is that deceit, the use of unlawful or illegal means?) Why not? It was representation to the persons addressed! of a fact. known to be false and intended to be acted upon,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.