Duff v. Engelberg (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 505, clearly delineates the difference in the damages that may be recovered from a seller and a third party guilty of interference with the contract. The issue there was '"whether a vendee under an executory contract to purchase real property can recover in addition to specific performance of said contract along with consequential and incidental relief damages, both compensatory and exemplary, against a third party who induced the vendor not to go forward with the sale."' (Id. at p. 506.) The court answered the query in the affirmative. (Ibid.) In analyzing the issue, the court quoted from Prosser on Torts, '"it is now agreed that the fact that there is an available action against the party who breaks the contract is no defense to the one who induces the breach, since the two are joint wrongdoers, and each is liable for the loss. Even a judgment in such an action, returned unsatisfied, is no defense. Where substantial loss has occurred, one line of cases tends to adopt the contract measure of damages, limiting recovery to those damages which were within the contemplation of the parties when the original contract was made. Another, apparently somewhat more uncertain of its ground, has applied a tort measure, but has limited the damages to those which are sufficiently "proximate," with some analogy to the rules as to negligent torts. A third, perhaps the most numerous, has treated the tort as an intentional one, and has allowed recovery for unforeseen expenses, as well as for mental suffering, damage to reputation, and punitive damages, by analogy to the cases of intentional injury to person or property. In the light of the intent and the lack of justification necessary to the tort, this seems the most consistent result. (Prosser, Torts (3d ed.) ch. 26, 123, pp. 972-973.)" (Duff v. Engelberg, supra, 237 Cal.App.2d at p. 508.) The court then added, "we accept the rule last stated as being the proper one for the reasons quoted in italics." (Ibid.)