Against Lumley v Gye

The Lumley v Gye tort of inducing a breach of contract is the foundation of strike law, although it also has a wider commercial role. We should reject the view that Lumley liability follows automatically from general contractual liability. Contract law is optional. Imposing its obligations on unwilling parties requires special justification. We should also be sceptical about the claim that Lumley liability increases confidence that contracts will be enforced. Such scepticism should be enhanced by parallels between Lumley liability and restitutionary damages for breach of contract. Some Lumley cases illustrate the point that ‘efficient breach of contract’ has a moral core, not just an economic core. For example, it can sometimes be unreasonable and unjust for parties to insist on precise contractual performance when they know that circumstances have changed in ways that the contract did not anticipate. For all these reasons the justification defence to Lumley should be widened.