No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
1. [1952] Ch 646.
2. [1898] AC 1.
3. 119 NW 946, Minn (1909).
4. Giblan v NALUGBI [1903] 2 KB 600.
5. [1964] AC 1129.
6. [1983] 2 AII ER 189.
7. [1994] Entertainment and Media Law Reports 44.
8. (1853)118 Eng Rep 749.
9. Of course, he also extracted ‘inconsistent dealings’ as a variety of this tort, but this reviewer has problems seeing why tortious liability should accrue in such a case, on any basis.
10. [1969] 1 AII ER 522.
11. [1993] IRLR 232. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision.
12. J Fleming The Law of Torts (8th edn, 1992) p 693; J Finnis Intention in Tort Law in Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (D Owen (ed) 1995) p 229; J D Heydon Economic Torts (2nd edn, 1978) pp 128ff.
13. Though he is willing to acknowledge that formalism may lead to liability where it should not and cites, as a possible answer to this. the German view that not every induced breach of contract is relevant, but only breaches of principal obligations.