The Gazette 1967/71

and stated that they would not give any consent to the purchase until full particulars about the purchaser had been furnished. It was then pointed out that Condell wished either to redeem the loan, or to allow it to continue. The plaintiffs stated that they would have to withhold consent until the new purchaser, Hennessy, had signed similar agree ments with them and that they wished to obtain a definite reply before 23 August 1965. At an application for an interlocutory injunction, the defendants relied on the case of Esso Petroleum v Harpurs Garage (1966), I AER 725. In December 1961 the Restrictive Trade Prac tices (Motor Spirit) Order, 1961, was made, and this was duly confirmed by the Restrictive Trade Practice (Confirmation of Orders) Act, 1962. A solus agreement was specifically defined in the order, and a solus agreement of more than five years duration was declared invalid after the 1962 Act has been passed. There was also a clause whereby a mortgage should not contain any provi sion whereby the retailer undertook to purchase motor spirit from the wholesaler for a longer period than five years. The plaintiffs tried to contend that the tie for twenty years was a reasonable restraint of trade— but no evidence to justify this has been given, and Harpur's case held this tie was unreasonable. These clauses were invalid as an unreasonable restraint of trade. It also follows that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration that Condell is not entitled without their consent to sell or transfer his busi ness, nor are they entitled to restrain him from doing so. Mr. Condell is fully entitled to redeem the amount outstanding on the loan. Plaintiff's action dismissed. [McMullan Bros. Ltd. v Condell and Hennessy; Kenny J.; Unreported; 30 January 1970.] COSTS Plaintiff put on terms pending decision of Minister Plaintiff passenger obtained judgment against first defendant for £3,701-5-0 and costs, and against the second defendant for £4,840-10-0 and costs in respect of injuries sustained in a collision between two cars. The second defendant dulv paid the sum of £4,840-10-0 and costs, but the plaintiff was unable to recover anything from first defen dant, as the sherriff made a return of no goods. The first defendant had a policy of insurance with the Zurich Insurance Company but an arbitrator held that at the time of the accident, the use of the motor vehicles was outside the limitation as to use

statement of the considerations which grounded the Minister's decision to grant or withdraw the exemption. The statutory requirement of parti culars of any grant or withdrawal was wider than particulars of the class or kind of business exempted. The court was satisfied that the plaintiffs had not shown that any provision of the Act was invalid save for the words "any particular business or" in Section 4 (1) and the words "a particular business of" in Section 4 (2). The plaintiffs would have a declaration that those provisions were invalid hav ing regard to the provisions of the Constitution. Save as to those declarations, the appeal of the The first defendant, Condell, was the owner of a garage in Portlaoise and wanted additional capital. The plaintiffs are distributors of "Mex" petrol. Finally a "loan agreement" and a "solus agree ment" were signed in September 1959; the two agreements contained several similar clauses. By the loan agreement, the plaintiff advanced £4,400 to assist the defendant in his business; this sum was to be repaid by annual instalments of £220 over a period of twenty years without interest. There was a clause that "the dealer will not sell or transfer his said business or convey or assign or part with the possession of the said premises to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of the company". The solus agreement was to remain in force for twenty years from 1 Sept. 1959. The dealer undertook to purchase from the company at least 70,000 gallons of motor spirit per annum. In case the actual purchase falls short of this figure, then the dealer is to make it good in the following year. There was also a claim to keep the premises in a clean and smart condition. It was also provided, that in the event of a sale with the consent of the plaintiff, the new purchaser had to undertake to be bound by the same terms. Condell's hopes of selling 70,000 gallons of petrol per annum were far from realised. In the first year, he sold 4,500 gallons; in the second year, he sold 7,000 gallons. In January 1967 the plaintiffs sent a notice to Condell to terminate his agreements with them from 28 February 1967 because he did not purchase the 70,000 gallons of petrol stipulated. In May 1965 plaintiffs became aware that Condell was considering a sale of iis business and drew his attention to the agreement, Attorney-General would be allowed. [The'Irish Times, 28 July 1970.] CONTRACT Restrictive Tie of Twenty Years Invalid