▁liv elihood , ▁there ▁an ▁action ▁lies ▁in ▁all ▁cases ." ▁The ▁court ▁noted ▁that ▁the ▁def endant ▁would ▁have ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁draw ▁away ▁du cks ▁to ▁a ▁p ond ▁of ▁his ▁own , ▁raising ▁as ▁a ▁comparison ▁a ▁ 1 4 1 0 ▁case ▁in ▁which ▁the ▁court ▁de emed ▁that ▁no ▁cause ▁of ▁action ▁would ▁lie ▁where ▁a ▁school master ▁opened ▁a ▁new ▁school ▁that ▁drew ▁students ▁away ▁from ▁an ▁old ▁school . ▁ ▁The ▁application ▁of ▁the ▁above ▁has ▁since ▁been ▁modified ▁in ▁UK ▁law . ▁In ▁O B G ▁v ▁All an ▁[ 2 0 0 8 ] ▁ 1 ▁AC ▁ 1 . ▁W rong ful ▁inter ference : ▁the ▁un ified ▁theory ▁which ▁treated ▁causing ▁loss ▁by ▁un law ful ▁means ▁as ▁an ▁extension ▁of ▁the ▁tort ▁of ▁indu cing ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁was ▁abandoned ; ▁indu cing ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁and ▁causing ▁loss ▁by ▁un law ful ▁means ▁were ▁two ▁separate ▁tort s . ▁indu cing ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁was ▁a ▁tort ▁of ▁access ory ▁li ability , ▁and ▁an ▁intention ▁to ▁cause ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁was ▁a ▁necessary ▁and ▁sufficient ▁requirement ▁for ▁li ability ; ▁a ▁person ▁had ▁to ▁know ▁that ▁he ▁was ▁indu cing ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁and ▁to ▁intend ▁to ▁do ; ▁that ▁a ▁conscious ▁decision ▁not ▁to ▁in quire ▁into ▁the ▁existence ▁of ▁a ▁fact ▁could ▁be ▁treated ▁as ▁knowledge ▁for ▁the ▁purposes ▁of ▁the ▁tort ; ▁that ▁a ▁person ▁who ▁know