Odger's English Common Law

TO DETERMINE CONTRACTS. 263
opportunity. Very few workmen are engaged for more than
a week at a time ; many only work by the day or the hour.
Hence a widespread combination might close the works on
very short notice without any breach of contract being com-
mitted, and yet with results disastrous to the community.
It was therefore contended with much force that if such a
combination were made without any just occasion or excuse,
it ought in some way to be punished. The law on this point
is not yet settled, except in the case of a trade dispute—an
exception which practically covers all serious cases in which
the point is likely to arise. If such a combination be made
" in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute," it is,
as we have seen, no crime, unless recourse be had to violence,
intimidation or other unlawful means.
(iii.) Lastly comes a question, upon which there has been
even greater difference of opinion. Is it in any case a crime
for A. and B. to agree together not to enter into any contracts
with C, and to induce X. and Y. to do the same ?
For one man to refuse to enter into a contract with any
one else is no crime and no tort. Equally clearly it is no
breach of contract. It is true, as Lord Macnaghten says in
Quinn v. Leathern, 1 that "it is a violation of legal right to
interfere with contractual relations recognised by law, if there
be no sufficient justification for the interference." But in
the case we are now discussing there are as yet no contractual
relations in existence to be interfered with. Again, for one
man to induce another not to enter into a contract with any
one else is no crime, no tort and no breach of contract. It
is only where the number of persons implicated is increased
that any possibility of a legal wrong arises.
Can it be said, then, that it is in any case unlawful for two
or more men to combine together to do an act, which is lawful
when done by one man alone ? This question has been
repeatedly discussed, but it is not yet definitely decided.
Darling, J"., held in Huttley v. Simmons and others, 2 that it
cannot be a tort for two or more persons merely to combine
i [1901] A. C. at p. 510.
2 [1898] 1 Q. B. 181.