Customize your cookie preferences

We respect your right to privacy. You can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Your cookie preferences will apply across our website.

We use cookies on our site to enhance your user experience, provide personalized content, and analyze our traffic. Cookie Policy.

Exchange Telegraph v Gregory

Modified: 21st Oct 2021
Wordcount: 309 words

Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written case summary. If you want to create an essay on any question or title, try out our AI Law Essay Writer.

Cite This

Legal Case Summary

Exchange Telegraph Co v Gregory & Co [1896] 1 QB 147

Tort – Procuring breach of contract – Injunction – Right of Property in Unpublished Information

Facts

Exchange Telegraph (ET) was a news agency that sent telegraph messages. It transmitted the latest stock exchange updates, had them typed up and made into a newspaper. It contracted subscribers to sell the newspaper. G&C obtained the telegraph tapes and posted it publicly. The company threatened to continue to print and multiply copies of the copyright information, obtain copies and induce subscribers of ET to break their contracts by supplying G&C with the information. An injunction was granted and G&C appealed.

Issues

Whether there was an infringement on ET’s copyright in the newspaper and whether injury was caused the ET by G&C.

Decision / Outcome

Allowing the appeal, ET had a right of property at common law in the information, and were entitled to an injunction to restrain G&C from infringing that right by continuing to publish it. G&C knew, based on the terms of their contract with ET, that the information had a monetary value to his business as a broker. He used the information he obtained by means of probable bribery to entice people to go into his office and deal with him. G&C persuaded the employed subscriber to break his contract with the plaintiffs, and thus, committed a gross breach of faith and did cause injury to ET. The information was deemed to have a value which could be sold and could be considered personal property owned by ET. G&C were found to have intentionally invaded ET’s right of property, caused injury to ET and therefore acted as an unlawful interference to a contract.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Generate a new AI Essay from this title with Nomikos AI

  • Free to use
  • Takes under 2 minutes
  • No registration required
  • 2:1 level work

Suggest 3 More Related Essay Titles with Nomikos AI

  • 2:1 academic standard titles
  • Instant suggestions
  • No registration required

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider