ingly ▁induced ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁as ▁a ▁means ▁to ▁an ▁end ▁had ▁the ▁necessary ▁intent ▁even ▁if ▁he ▁was ▁not ▁motiv ated ▁by ▁mal ice ▁but ▁had ▁acted ▁with ▁the ▁mot ive ▁of ▁se cur ing ▁an ▁economic ▁advantage ▁for ▁himself ; ▁that , ▁however , ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁which ▁was ▁neither ▁an ▁end ▁in ▁itself ▁nor ▁a ▁means ▁to ▁an ▁end ▁but ▁was ▁merely ▁a ▁for ese e able ▁consequence ▁of ▁a ▁person ' s ▁acts ▁did ▁not ▁give ▁rise ▁to ▁li ability ; ▁and ▁that ▁there ▁could ▁be ▁no ▁secondary ▁li ability ▁without ▁primary ▁li ability , ▁and ▁therefore ▁a ▁person ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁li able ▁for ▁indu cing ▁a ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁unless ▁there ▁had ▁in ▁fact ▁been ▁a ▁bre ach ▁by ▁the ▁contract ing ▁party . ▁ ▁C aus ing ▁loss ▁by ▁un law ful ▁means : ▁acts ▁against ▁a ▁third ▁party ▁counted ▁as ▁un law ful ▁means ▁only ▁if ▁they ▁were ▁action able ▁by ▁that ▁third ▁party ▁if ▁he ▁had ▁suffered ▁loss ; ▁that ▁un law ful ▁means ▁consisted ▁of ▁acts ▁intended ▁to ▁cause ▁loss ▁to ▁the ▁claim ant ▁by ▁inter fer ing ▁with ▁the ▁freedom ▁of ▁a ▁third ▁party ▁in ▁a ▁way ▁which ▁was ▁un law ful ▁as ▁against ▁that ▁third ▁party ▁and ▁which ▁was ▁intended ▁to ▁cause ▁loss ▁to ▁the ▁claim ant , ▁but ▁did ▁not ▁include ▁acts ▁which ▁might ▁be ▁un law ful ▁against ▁a ▁third ▁party ▁but ▁which ▁did ▁not ▁affect ▁his ▁freedom ▁to ▁deal ▁with ▁the ▁claim ant