The Gazette 1967/71

failure of a pump and had remained on the road for 3 hours until repaired during which time another vehicle collided with the rear and others narrowly missed it. No evidence was given of a practice among lorry owners to provide flashing or other lamps to set in the roadway. It was held that the defendants were not negligent and he referred to Moore v. Maxwells in which lights had failed completely. (Butland v. Coxhead and Others. 112. S. J. 465). Vendor and Purchaser; specific performance J. bought a house in 1947 and entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs whereby the plain tiffs lived in the house with J. and his wife looking after them and in return had a tenancy of the upper storeys and further an option to purchase the house for £1,000 after the death of J. and his wife. The plaintiffs agreed to pay £4 10 a month, the payments to be treated as part payments of the purchase price. J. died in 1963 and his wife in 1965 and the plaintiffs sought to exercise their option purchase but the defendants, the executors of the J's refused to convey the house to them, contending that the agreement was void for a variety of reasons. The plaintiffs claimed inter alia specific perfor mance of which the court would not supervise. Gross J. said that the defendants contention was misconceived. Where the obligations binding on a person seeking specific performance had been fully carried out before the obligations of the other side were sought to be enforced it was hard to see how the mutuality principle came in at all. The plaintiffs we entitled to an order for specific performance. Order accordingly. (Kirkland and Another v. Bird and Another. 112 S.J. 440). Company, Validity of Unregistered Charge By an agreement in writing dated 27th July, 1965 the first defendant agreed to sell to the second defendant, a company a plot of land for £37,900, it being provided inter alia that 75 per cent of the purchase money should be secured by a first mortgage of the property payable as provided therein. On February 23rd 1966 the property was conveyed to the second defendant and £9,475 was paid towards the purchase price and the balance of £28,425 was left to be secured by a legal charge. On the same day the second defendant charged the property to the first defen dant with the payment of the outstanding bal- 32

1854, Section 71 but breach of such statutory duty does not create a civil right to damages. The appeal allowed. (Peter Magee v. Peter Grant. High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, 27th May, 1968). Employment, Wrongful dismissal It was held that an employee who is wrongfully dismissed is not entitled to his remuneration after the date of his dismissal—his sole remedy is for damages. Therefore, a claim by a company managing pop artists for their fees after their contract had been repudiated was misconceived. It was also decided by a majority that the per sonal manager of a group of pop artists was under no absolute duty to retain their confidence, and that his leaving them in the middle of an American tour without telling their leader did not constitute a fundamental breach of contract. The plaintiff company were appointed as manager of the Kinks pop group in return for a fee of 10 per cent, of the group's earnings. Mr. Larry Page performed the obligations of the plaintiff and acted as personal manager. During an American tour he left the group and returned to England and while he told each of the other members he did not tell the leader. The Group decided to have nothing further to do with Mr. Page as a result and wrote the plaintiffs saying that their contract was at an end. The plaintiffs however asserted that the contract continued and claimed an account of fees due to them. (Denmark Productions Ltd. v. Boscobell Pro ductions Ltd. Times, June 29th). Road Traffic—Immobilised heavy lorry on clear way at night. A learner driver, riding a motor scooter on a clearway 30ft 6 in. wide collided with the back of an articulated lorry 7ft. 8 in. wide stationary at the side of the road, with rear lights visible for a reasonable distance. As particulars of negligence he alleged that the defendants failed to park off the roadway or in a side road or to take any proper precautions for the safety of other road users, contending inter alia that a flashing lamp should have been set in the road way some distance behind the breakdown to give earlier warning than the rear lights provided. The defendants denied negligence and pleaded con tributory negligence. The lorry had been im mobilised by a sudden and unexpected mechanical