Understanding Intimidation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9197271 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John Murphy (0000-0003-0200-7778, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 77 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 33-59 |
| Publication date | 2014-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Modern Law Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0026-7961 • E-ISSN: 1468-2230 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1468-2230.12055 |
| OpenAlex | W2331848845 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 12 |
This article examines the gist, vitality and practical utility of the tort of intimidation and identifies what count as unlawful threats and as actionable harm. While two versions of the tort have been identified in the past – one involving two parties, one involving three – only the former has survived the decision of the House of Lords in OBG v A llan . In the context considering the tort's practical usefulness, the article exposes as bogus the suggestion that two‐party intimidation offers nothing that is not already supplied under the law of contract via the doctrines of anticipatory breach, duress and economic duress. The article concludes with two radical suggestions. First, that two‐party intimidation is not a specifically economic tort and secondly, in view of this fact, it was a most inappropriate tool for the House of Lords to have used in their resurrection of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy in T otal N etwork SL v Revenue and C ustoms C ommissioners
Context (archaeology) · Harm · Intimidation · Law and economics · Liability · Nothing · Political science · Sociology · Tort · History · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal principles and applications · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|