Odger's English Common Law

CIVIL CONSPIRACIES. 627
is a criminal conspiracy. Hence the other party to the
contract can bring an action against all or any of the con-
spirators, if he has sustained a particular loss through their
conduct. 1
"It is a violation of legal right to interfere with con-
tractual relations recognised by law, if there be no sufficient
justification for the interference." 2
This is so, whether the
interference complained of be the act of one man or of many.
But " it is not every procuring of a breach of contract that
will give a right of action." 3
The defendants must have
known of the terms of the contract of which they were
procuring the breach, or at least of its existence ; their
interference must have been without sufficient justification,
and damage must have ensued to the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs, who were manufacturers, sold their goods wholesale to
factors upon the terms inter alia that the factors should not sell them
to retailers at less than a specified price, and not at all to certain dealers
who were on a " suspended " list. The defendants, who were dealers on
this list and who were well aware of the terms of the agreement between
the plaintiffs and their factors, employed H. and L. to obtain the plaintiffs'
goods from certain factors, who had signed the plaintiffs' factors' agree-
ment, by falsely representing themselves as independent dealers and by
dealing in fictitious names. By this means they procured the plaintiffs'
goods and paid for them through H. and L. at a price less than that
specified in the agreements, thereby causing the plaintiffs damage. It was
held by the Court of Appeal that this was an unjustifiable interference
with the contractual rights between the plaintiffs and the factors. 4
Again, no one is bound to work for or deal with a
particular person ; he may lawfully refuse to enter into any
contract with him. But if a large number of persons agree
together that they will not enter into any contracts with
some unpopular person—will not supply him or his family
with the necessaries of life—such boycotting is in many
1 Skinner v. Kitoh (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 393 ; Quinn v. Leatliem, [1901] A. C. 495 ;
Read v. Friendly Society of Operative Stonemason* and others, [1902] 2 K. B. 732 ;
Giblan v. National Amalgamated Labourers* Union, $c., [190s] 2 K. B. 600 ; Sovtk
Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co., [1905] A. C. 239 ; Sweeney v. Coote,
[1906] 1 I. B. 57 ; [1907] A. C. 221 ; National Phonograph Co., Ltd. v. Edison Bell,
$c, Co., Ltd., [1908] 1 Oh. 335.
* Per Lord Macnaghten in Quinn v. Leathern, [1901] A. C. at p. 510.
3 Per Bigby, L. J., in Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Gregory $ Co., [1898] 1 Q. B.
at p. 157, quoted with approval by Kennedy, L. J., in National Phonograph Co.,
Ltd. v. Edison Bell, #c, Co., Ltd., [1908] 1 Ch. at p. 367.
* National Phonograph Co., Ltd. v. Edison BeU, $c, Co., Ltd., [1908] 1 Ch. 335.
40—2