14

Introduction
This project is basically dealing with conspiracy. Conspiracy is of two kinds,
one is under the scope of conspiracy torts and the other is under law of crimes.
The focus is on tortuous conspiracy. It shall be defining conspiracy and then a
general comparison between tortuous and criminal conspiracy. It shall also
cover its essentials, types and deal with the circumstances where one can be
sued for the same which would be supported by the case laws.
14
Conspiracy: A Tort and/or a Crime?
Conspiracy is both a tort and a crime. Criminal conspiracy is different from
conspiracy as tort. The Indian penal code, 18! deals with it. "nder criminal
law, merely an agreement between the parties to do an illegal act or a legal act
by illegal means is actionable. It is not necessary that the conspirators must have
acted in pursuance of their agreement, that is, fulfilment of the act conspired is
not necessary. The tort of conspiracy is, however, not committed by a mere
agreement between the parties# the tort is completed only when actual damage
results to the plaintiff.
Civil Conspiracy
14
$ civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to
deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal
objective. $ conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an
agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or
partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit
some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of
planning or be aware of all details. $ny voluntary agreement and some overt act
by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to
prove a conspiracy. $ conspiracy may e%ist whether legal means are used to
accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal.
&'ven when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought
by the persons who were damaged.& In the law of tort, the legal elements
necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for
establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or
more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a
lawful aim by unlawful means. The criminal law often re(uires one of the
conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate
the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an
overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be re(uired.
'tymologically, the term comes from )atin con- &with, together&, and spirare
&to breathe&
14
Civil conspiracy in United States business litigation
Civil conspiracy law often takes the form of antitrust lawsuits, usually litigated
in federal court, where the plaintiff seeks treble damages for overpayments
caused by price*fi%ing above the market rate. The federal +herman $ntitrust $ct
provides both civil and criminal penalties. ,ther agreements among businesses
and their agents for group boycotts, to monopoli-e, and to set predatory prices
with intent to drive a small competitor out of business, would be actionable.
Civil conspiracy under English law
The tort of conspiracy re(uires there to be knowledge of the relevant
circumstances and of the agreement made.
Thus, as a precondition to corporate liability, it must be possible to attribute the
relevant employee.s or agent.s knowledge to the corporation. There are two
possible legal approaches/
0 $s a matter of agency law, the acts and omissions constituting the alleged
conspiracy must have been carried out within the actual or ostensible authority
of the agent# or
0 $s a matter of vicarious liability the acts and omissions must have been
carried out in and during the course of the employment.
14
Essentials or Conspiracy
!" There should be more than one person:
The tort re(uires an agreement, combination, understanding, or concert to
injure, involving two or more persons. There should be at least two persons then
only an action for conspiracy can be made out. 1usband and wife were once
thought to be one person in the eyes of the common law and, therefore, to be
incapable of conspiring together. This is still the case in criminal conspiracy.
2ut it has been held that, in the absence of binding authority, and of compelling
rationale of public policy, the primitive ma%im that spouses are one person
should not be imported to the tort of conspiracy.
#" The act done should be without any lawul $ustiication:
The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant combined to do the act was illegal
or legal but done by an illegal means. It should not be enforceable by law. In
other words we can say that there should not be any lawful e%cuse or it should
be without any lawful justification. "nless this re(uirement is made out there
shall have no conspiracy on the part of the defendants.
%" It should be done willully:
The object or the purpose of the combination must be to cause damage to
the plaintiff. The test is not what the defendants contemplated as a likely or even
an inevitable conse(uence of their conduct# it is 3what is in truth the object in
the minds of the conspirators or combiners when they acted as they did4 5alice
14
in the sense of malevolence, spite of ill will is not essential for liability# what is
re(uired is that the combiners should have acted in order that 6not with the
result that, even the foreseeable result7 the plaintiff should suffer damage. The
act should be done willfully, if isn8t then no action can be made out for
conspiracy.
9" &amage on the part o the plainti:
:amage is an essential element of the tort of conspiracy, the gist of the cause of
action. It has been held that the damage constituted by the e%pense incurred by
plaintiffs in e%posing and resisting the wrongful activities of the defendants can
be awarded to them as damage directly caused by the conspiracy. :amages for
injury to feelings or to reputation, however, cannot be recovered in an action
based upon a 3lawful means; conspiracy to injure.
14
'ho can be sued or this oence?
<here persons engage in such a conspiracy, and in pursuance thereof do an act
which causes damage to another, they or any one of them can be sued. The mere
act of conspiracy is not the subject of a civil action. To sustain an action special
damage must be proved. It is the damage wrongfully done, and not the
conspiracy that is the gist of action for conspiracy. If the act which injures $ is
not that of a single individual, but is due to a combination of two or more
persons, then motive or purpose becomes material.
Thus, where several persons combine to hiss at an actor, or to =boycott8 a
tradesman or merchant, the element of combination is part and parcel of the
wrong, since the damage could not have occurred without it. The illegal or
malicious combination is then the gist of the wrong. 3In all such cases it will be
found that there e%isted either an ultimate object of malice, or wrong, wrongful
means of e%ecution involving elements of injury to the public, or, at least,
negativing the pursuit of a lawful object.
14
Types o Conspiracy
The tort of conspiracy takes two forms/ conspiracy to use unlawful means, and
conspiracy to injure. The latter does, but the former does not, re(uired a
predominant purpose to injure. )iability for conspiracy to injure, where the acts
would without combination be lawful, forms a (ualification to the general rule
that the mere agreement of many persons to act in concern cannot make the act
of any one or wrongful, if it would not be wrongful when done by each alone
independently. 2riefly stated, the tort of conspiracy can be divided into two
classes/
17 <here the dominant purpose is to injure a third party though the means
employed are not themselves unlawful# and
>7 <here the means employed are by themselves lawful.
Conspiracy to in$ure:
The purpose to injure or harm a third party must be distinguished from the
purpose to advance the legitimate interests of the persons combining together.
In 5ogul +teamship Co.8s case, it is laid down that no action for a conspiracy
lies against persons who act in concert to advance their legitimate interests but
as a necessary conse(uence to damage another and do damage him, but at the
same time merely e%ercise their own rights by lawful means and who infringe
no rights of other people. Thus acts done by ? and @ who are acting in concert
solely for the purpose of protecting and e%tending their trade and increasing
their profits, and which do not involves the employment of any means by
14
themselves unlawful are not actionable, even though these cause damage to $,
not actionable# provided that his competitors are acting solely with the lawful
object of securing success in trade and use no unlawful means.
Quinn v. Leathem holds that a combination of two or more persons, without
Austification or e%cuse, to injure a man in his trade by inducing his customers or
servants to break their contracts with him, or not to deal with him, or continue
in his employment is, if it results in damage to him, actionable. $ person has a
right to carry on his own business, as long as he does not break the law, in the
way he himself prefers. 1ence, it is the legal duty of third person not to use
intimidation or coercion towards him or hi customers, with a view to prevent
him from carrying on his business in the way he chooses.
In this case the facts are as/
The plaintiff was a butcher and the defendants were officials of a trade union.
The defendants asked the plaintiff to discharge certain workmen who did not
belong to the "nion. The plaintiff refused on which the defendants compelled
the plaintiff8s chief customer to cease to deal with him by threatening that
unless that was done, they would withdraw all their workmen.
It was found by the jury that the defendants had maliciously conspired to induce
the plaintiff8s customers not to deal with him. It was held that the plaintiff was
entitled to sue the defendants for damages and thus allowed to recover damages.
Unlawul means conspiracy:
If a combination of persons uses unlawful means to achieve their object and
damage results to the plaintiff, he will be no doubt entitled to sue the persons
combining for conspiracy if their predominant purpose was to injure the
14
plaintiff. Burther, if the unlawful means employed by the combiners are
themselves actionable by the plaintiff, even without the combination as joint
tort*feasors for the damage caused to him without taking the aid of tort of
conspiracy. 2ut what happens when the means employed are not actionable
though they are unlawful4 The answer given to this (uestion by the +upreme
Court of India and the 1ouse of )ords, is that persons combining to use such
unlawful means cannot be sued for conspiracy by the plaintiff suffering damage
unless the purpose of the combination was to injure him. 2ut the purpose to
injure the plaintiff need not be predominant purpose if unlawful means are used#
it is sufficient if it is one of the purposes. $fter a period of uncertainty the
1ouse of )ords, in a case, reaffirmed that this form of tort does not re(uire a
predominant purpose to injure the plaintiff. 1owever, the tort still re(uires an
intention to injure the/ it is not enough that the defendants combine to do an
unlawful act, which has the effect of causing damage to the plaintiff.
14
(ther Case )aws relating to Tort o conspiracy
(1) Mogul Steamship Co . v . McGregor Gow and Co
The defendants, who were firms of ship owners trading between china and
'urope, with a view to obtaining for themselves a monopoly of the homeward
tea trade, and thereby keeping up the rate of freight. They formed themselves
into an association, and offered to such merchants and shippers in china as
shipped their tea e%clusively in vessels belonging to the members of the
association a rebate of five percent. ,n all freight paid by them. The plaintiffs,
who were rival ship owners trading between china and 'urope, were e%cluded
by the defendants from all the benefits of the association, and, in conse(uence
of such e%clusion they sustained damage. The plaintiffs brought an action
against the defendants alleging conspiracy to injure them.
It was held that the acts of the defendants were done with the lawful object of
protecting and e%tending their trade and increasing their profits, and since they
had not employed any unlawful means. The defendants were not held liable and
thus the plaintiffs had no cause of action.
(2) Sorrel v . Smith
The plaintiff, a retail newsagent, who was accustomed to take his newspapers
from C, withdrew his custom from C and started taking newspapers from <.
The defendants, members of a committee of circulation managers of )ondon
daily papers, threatened the cutting off the supply of newspapers to < if <
continued to supply newspapers to the plaintiff. The defendants had acted so to
promote their business interests. The defendants were not held liable.
14
() Crofter !and "o#en !arris $weed Co. Ltd. v . %eitch&
The defendants, a trade union, instructed dockers, who were members of the
union, to refuse to handle the plaintiff8s goods 6without there being any breach
of contract7. The object of this embargo was to prevent competition in the yarn
trade and thus helping to secure economic stability of the industry and thereby
increase the wage prospects of the union members in the mills.
(') !untele( v . $hornton
The plaintiff, a member of a union, refused to comply with the union8s call for
strike. The defendants, the secretary and some members of the union, wanted
the e%pulsion of the plaintiff from the union but the e%ecutive council of the
union decided not to do that. The defendants acting out of grudge against the
plaintiff made efforts to see that the plaintiff remained out of work.
The acts of the defendants were not in furtherance of any union interest but
were actuated by malice and grudge. The defendants were held liable and the
plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages.
14
C(*C)USI(*
$fter analy-ing the scope and nature of conspiracy I came to a conclusion that
the scope of conspiracy in torts is limited. It mainly concerns with trade and
business related cases.
In India the scope of conspiracy in tort is very narrow. In most of the cases the
defendants use to escape from the liability by saying that they have acted so to
promote their business interest.
14
+I+)I(,-A./0
Conspiracy )aw D )egal :efinition
6http/EEdefinitions.uslegal.comEcEconspiracyE7
'ncarta/Conspiracy
6http/EEencarta.msn.comEencyclopediaFG1HH>I9EConspiracy.html7.
<ikipedia search
6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(civil))
R.K. Bangia !"aw o# $orts%
&oogle 'earch
(ario)s *e+sites