JJJ

WHETHER OTTO LIMITED INDUCED BREACH OF CONTRACT
BETWEEN SESAKU AND NAHANAN LIMITED.
The claimant humbly submits that Otto Limited induced breach of contract between
Sesaku and Nanahan Limited. The same has been proved by the following argument:
A common law tort claims that a defendant intentionally convinced or caused a third party to
breach its contract with the plaintiff which resulted in damages to the plaintiff.
The defendant can be liable for the damages caused by its tortious interference.
As its name implies, this cause of action requires the existence of a business contract, coupled
with the claim that a third party has wrongfully interfered with it. Each state has its own
requirements to prove tortious interference with an existing contract. Generally, you will
need to prove all of the following:
 a valid contract existed between your business and another person or business.
The contract entered into by Sesaku with Nanahan Limited was valid on the grounds
that it was duly read and signed by Sesaku when both the parties were mentally and
physically competent of doing so and had the intention to enter into the contract.
 a third party (the defendant) knew that this contract existed
Otto Limited had all the means of knowing that a valid contract existed between
Sesaku and Nanahan Limited since the facts state that Dr. Oricho Mura was a former
employee of Nanahan Limited1 and the latter made everyone sign the non- disclosure
and the non- compete agreements.2 It is also stated that Otto Limited had similar non
compete clauses with its own employees and such clauses are admitted by Otto
Limited as being industry standards where non- compete clauses are used.3
 the third party intentionally and by wrongful means interfered with your
contract relationship.
Otto Limited had the intention of interfering with the contractual relationship of
Sesaku and Nanahan Limited as it was a competitor of Nanahan Limited with the
kinds of products it sold and was shortly starting its own research wing with the help
of Sesaku4 who was known to be the most renowned researcher of the company and
leading scientist of the industry.5
It is also admitted that Sesaku was the main fund generator for Nanahan Limited as
45% of its income arose from funding that was generated by Sesaku’s presence.6
1
Moot Proposition P. 3
2
3
4
Ibid @ 3
5
6
Ibid @ 3
 Damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach
Otto Limited’s intentional tortuous interference with the contractual relationship of
Sesaku and Nanahan Limited resulted in the prospect of Nanahan Limited’s funding
being reduced to half.7
Further, in Pepsi Foods Limited v/s Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Private Limited8, it
was held by the High Court of Delhi that:
Inducing by unlawful means, the independent business consultants under contract with
the plaintiffs to break/breach their contracts with the plaintiffs.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Others vs Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. : 1999 VAD Delhi
93
The central issue decided by Rookes v. Barnard was that a threat of breach of contract
or of inducement to breach of contract could constitute unlawful means and,
therefore, that the scope of unlawful means was not confined to physical threats and
fraud.9
In Stratford v. Lindley10 the defendants committed the tort of interference with

business by the unlawful means of inducing breach of employment contracts of their
members, thereby placing the plaintiff in breach of numerous commercial contracts
and causing him loss.
In Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton11 action taken to boycott the plaintiff’s

business by inducing the union’s members not to deal with it, in breach of their
contracts of employment, amounted to interference by unlawful means.
• Whether Otto Limited induced breach of contract between Sesaku

and Nahanan Limited.   The essential elements of this tort are
accordingly as follows:-
• Knowledge by the defendant that he is inducing a breach of contract.

Otto Ltd had knowledge of the fact that they were inducing a breach of contract between
Sesaku and Nahanan Ltd. The case establishing liability for inducing breach of contract was
7
Ibid @ 1
8
Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Others vs Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. : 1999 VAD Delhi 93
9
Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (V Edition) P. 520
10
[1965] AC 269
11
[1983] 1 AC 191.
Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E&B; 216, in which the person procuring a breach of contract was
held liable as accessory to the liability of the contracting party. The presence of knowledge
was stated in the two fold arguments of the case Merkur Island Shipping Corp v Laughton
[1983] 2 A.C. 570 at 608]
(2) Intention to procure a breach of contract.

Sesaku joined Otto Ltd an evening before Noratu’s research paper was published, he resigned
from the firm coupled with the fact that Sesaku was already indulged in writing of the
scathing paper with Dr. Oricho Mura, in which they found the illogicities of Noratu’s
research study. Sesaku was hired at a managerial and administrative post of Otto Ltd. All of
this lead to the conclusion that Otto Ltd via Dr. Oricho Mura, had a mala-fide intention of
inducing the breach of the contract to break Nanhanan Ltd’s contract to the damage of Sesaku
without reasonable justification or excuse is a tort ,indirectly which seems to be well planned
here. There was intentional invasion of its contractual rights and not merely that
the breach of contract was the natural consequence of the defendant's conduct; he must
show that the breach of contract was an end in itself or the means to an end. (OBG Ltd. v
Allan). (Greig v Insole [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 at 337-338). 
(3) Breach of contract

Lumley v Gye (ibid. at 1234 per Lord Pearce). Lord Devlin could
find "nothing to differentiate a threat of a breach of contract from
a threat of physical violence or any other illegal threat" [1964] A.C.
1129 at 1209
Malicious motives make a bad act worse, but they cannot make that a wrong which in its own
essence is lawful." Petit v. Cuneo, 290 Ill. App. 16, 7 N.E. (2d) 774 (1937).
It will be noticed that in Beekman v. Marsters the defendant was guilty of genuinely
procuring or inducing a breach of contract,
The rival lover who induces a girl to break her engagement with her fiance and to marry him
instead, is undeniably inducing or procuring the girl to break her contract of marriage.
Nor can it be said that this is a case of incidentally "causing" rather than "procuring" the
breach. For the object which the plaintiff sought to secure for himself in the making of the
contract, i.e., marriage with the girl, is the same as that which the defendant sought in
procuring the breach
Smithies v. Nat'l Ass'n of Operative Plasterers, [xgog] i K. B. 310, Buckley, L. J., referring
to the situation supposed, at page 337, says: "A may not only induce him to break it, but may
invoke the assistance of a court of justice to make him break it."
(4) Damage
Similarly inducing a breach of contract by a third party with the
intention of damaging the claimant can also amount to this tort.
Hadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton [1983] 1 A.C. 191 at 228-229)
Lonrho v Fayed [1990] 2 Q.B. 479 at 488-489 per Dillon L.J.)
Nanahan Ltd. there was a breach as per Clause 7.3/7.4 that has been committed by
Sesaku and that has only happened because Otto had offered Sesaku a job:
1. Aasia Industrial Technologies vs Ambience Space Sellers Ltd. ; (1997) 99 BOMLR 613
2. Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Others vs Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. : 1999 VAD Delhi 93
3. Lindsay International Pvt. Ltd. vs Laxmi Niwas Mittal & Ors
Lawful Justification
In Citizens' Light, Heat and Power Co. v. Montgomery Light and Water Power Co.," the
court, in discussing such a situation and defining in connection therewith the rights of rival
traders, said: "The trader who has made a contract with another person has a right, which the
law will protect, to have that other keep it. Other traders have the correlative right to solicit
the custom to which the contract relates. Whatever damage results to the first trader by the
mere solicitation is privileged, so far as the solicitor is concerned, in the interest of proper
freedom of competition.
Fed. 553, 56o-56z (M. D. Ala., xgog).

JJJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JJJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JJJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHETHER OTTO LIMITED INDUCED BREACH OF CONTRACT

BETWEEN SESAKU AND NAHANAN LIMITED.

 a third party (the defendant) knew that this contract existed

In Stratford v. Lindley10 the defendants committed the tort of interference with

In Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton11 action taken to boycott the plaintiff’s

• Whether Otto Limited induced breach of contract between Sesaku

• Knowledge by the defendant that he is inducing a breach of contract.

(2) Intention to procure a breach of contract.

(3) Breach of contract

Fed. 553, 56o-56z (M. D. Ala., xgog).

You might also like