ΑΣΤΙΚΑ ΑΔΙΚΗΜΑΤΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΟ (2 ΤΟΜΟΙ)

each business taking steps to promote itself at the expense of the other. One retail businessmay reduce its prices to customerswith a view to diverting trade to itself and away from a competitor shop. Far from prohibiting such conduct, the common law seeks to encourage and protect it. The common law recognises the economic advantages of competition”. Τα πράγματα φυσικά αλλάζουν όταν ο εναγόμενος χρησιμοποιεί παρά- νομα ή αθέμιτα μέσα για να προωθήσει τα δικά του συμφέροντα σε βά- ρος των συμφερόντων ή δικαιωμάτων του ενάγοντα. Τότε το νομικό σύ- στημα πρέπει να επέμβει και να αποτρέψει όχι τόσο την οικονομική ζη- μιά –που αποτελεί αναπόφευκτο στοιχείο της σύγχρονης κοινωνίας– όσο τη χρησιμοποίηση παράνομων και αθέμιτων μέσων. Ο Δικαστής Νicholls διατύπωσε την πιο πάνω αρχή ως ακολούθως: “This is not to say that in this field of economic rivalry anything goes. Business people are not free to promote their own businesses at the expense of others by whatever means they may choose. There are limits. The common law has long recognised that some forms of conduct, intentionally damaging other traders, are not acceptable”. Ο Δικαστής Bowen στην υπόθεση Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v. McGregor Gow & Co 898 ανέφερε (το 1889) τα πιο κάτω, τα οποία εύστοχα οριοθετούν το πρόβλημα: “What, then, are the limitations which the law imposes on a trader in the conduct of his business as between himself and other traders? There seem to be no burdens or restrictions in law upon a trader which arise merely from the fact that he is a trader, and which are not equally laid on all other subjects of the Crown. His right to trade freely is a right which the law recognises and encourages, but it is one which places him at no special disadvantage as compared with others. No man, whether trader or not, can, however, justify damaging another in his commercial business by fraud or misrepresentation. Intimidation, obstruction, andmolestation are forbidden; so is the intentional procurement of a violation of individual rights, contractual or other, assuming always that there is no just cause for it […]. But the defendants have been guilty of none of these acts. They have done nothing more against the plaintiffs than pursue to the bitter end a war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade. To the argument that a competition so pursued ceases to have a just cause or excuse when there 898 (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 598. 744 ΠΟΛΥΒΙΟΣ Γ. ΠΟΛΥΒΙΟΥ