Turning a blind eye or imposing an obligation on him to investigate and demand that something is being hidden from him. Based on the well-known judgment D.C. Thomson & Co. v. Deakin (1952) 2 All E.R. 361 say the authors Winfield & Jolowicz, On Tort, X ed. At p. 448:
"On the other hand, it is not sufficient merely that A must have known that the person reached by his exhortations must have contracts of some kind or other with other persons and that his exhortations might result in some breaches of them; nor is there any general duty actively to inquire about the existence of contracts between others".
When I said above that in the circumstances of this case it would have been expected that at least a Chassid would disclose Ben Shachar's ear to the tenant's wages, I find support for this in the authors Clerk & Lindsell, On Torts, XIV ed., ibid., at p. 398:
"naturally, a plaintiff who is in doubt about the state of mind of his prospective defendant may well strengthen his position by giving the latter express notice of the contracts of which he alleges the defendant is procuring a breach".
And as for the excerpt that my colleague mentioned from the Emerald Construction Co. judgment. Ltd. V. Lowthian (1966) 1 All E.R. 1013 It should be emphasized that in that case, as in the others mentioned, the question of the defendants' lack of knowledge as to the existence of a contract that may be breached did not arise at all. In all of the aforementioned cases, the starting point was that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had clear knowledge of the very existence of the contract and that they intended and acted in a prejudicial manner to bring about its breach. What they did not know, these are the detailed terms of the contract and under what circumstances it can be terminated. In the case of Emerald Construction, not only was there clear knowledge of the performance of the contract by the defendants, but there was an exchange of letters and an ultimatum to the contractor to cease employing the plaintiff's employees to certain degrees; a similar was the case in the case of Daily Mirror Newspapers, Ltd. V. Gardner and others (1968) 2 All E.R. 163, and also in the matter of Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. V. Counsins and others (1960) 1 All E.R. 522 The knowledge of the fulfillment of a contract was not at all in dispute, since it was precisely in order to bring about its breach that the defendants placed guards in front of the hotel in order to prevent the entry trucks from supplying fuel in accordance with the contract with Asso, which they sought to bring about its breach.