Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Understanding Intimidation

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Understanding Intimidation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Understanding Intimidation. / Murphy, John.
In: Modern Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1, 02.01.2014, p. 33-59.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Murphy, J 2014, 'Understanding Intimidation', Modern Law Review, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 33-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12055

APA

Murphy, J. (2014). Understanding Intimidation. Modern Law Review, 77(1), 33-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12055

Vancouver

Murphy J. Understanding Intimidation. Modern Law Review. 2014 Jan 2;77(1):33-59. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12055

Author

Murphy, John. / Understanding Intimidation. In: Modern Law Review. 2014 ; Vol. 77, No. 1. pp. 33-59.

Bibtex

@article{b99d8b1951154957863f99a87300c757,
title = "Understanding Intimidation",
abstract = "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 Allan. 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 Total Network SL v Revenue and Customs Commissioners.",
author = "John Murphy",
year = "2014",
month = jan,
day = "2",
doi = "10.1111/1468-2230.12055",
language = "English",
volume = "77",
pages = "33--59",
journal = "Modern Law Review",
issn = "0026-7961",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding Intimidation

AU - Murphy, John

PY - 2014/1/2

Y1 - 2014/1/2

N2 - 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 Allan. 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 Total Network SL v Revenue and Customs Commissioners.

AB - 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 Allan. 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 Total Network SL v Revenue and Customs Commissioners.

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12055

DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12055

M3 - Journal article

VL - 77

SP - 33

EP - 59

JO - Modern Law Review

JF - Modern Law Review

SN - 0026-7961

IS - 1

ER -