"The principle can be subdivided into three elements: First, there must be interference in the execution of the contract. The interference is not confined to the procurement of a breach of contract. It extends to a case where a third person prevents or hinders one party from performing his contract, even though it be not a breach. Secondly, the interference must be deliberate. The person must know of the contract or, at any rate, turn a blind eye to it and to intend to interfere with it, see Emerald Construction Co.
Ltd. V. Lowthiam. Thirdly, the interference must be direct. Indirect interference will not do… indirect interference is only unlawful if unlawful means are used. I went too far when I said in Daily Mirror Newspapers, Ltd. V. Gardner, that there was no difference between direct and indirect interference".
When examining the liability of a defendant, to whom a breach of contract is attributed, it is necessary to take into account in addition to the mere knowledge of the existence of the contract, the nature of the contract that was breached, the status of the parties to that contract, the reasons for the breach, the measures taken to cause the breach, the relationship between the person causing the breach and the person who caused the breach, and the purpose of the person who caused the breach. ( Winfield and Jolowicz, On Tort, X ed. P. 453).
When we examine the findings of the trial court and the overall circumstances of the case as proven, from the aspects mentioned herein, the appellant's claim was dismissed in law, and therefore this is also the fate of the appeal.
It was decided by a majority opinion to reject the appeal. The appellants, jointly and severally, must pay respondents 2 and 3 together the costs of this appeal in the total sum of 10,000 Israeli pounds.
- Cohen -628/77
Given today, 8 Kislev, a criminal case - minimum wage (28.11.1979).