The Gazette 1967/71

CURRENT LAW DIGEST SELECTED In reading this digest regard should be had to the differences between Irish and English Statute Law. CONTRACT A fully executed illegal contract may be effec tive to pass the property in goods so as to enable a plaintiff hire finance company to recover damages in an action for conversion notwith standing the fact that the company has not taken possession of the goods. The measure of damages to the company is the value of the loss of its interest in the goods at the time of conversion. [Balvoir Finance Co. Ltd. v Stapleton; Court of Appeal; The Times, 28 July 1970.] A college prospectus containing an outline of the syllabus of a course of study forms part of the contract between the college and a student, the Court held when dismissing a claim for damages for breach of contract brought against Lough- borough College of Technology, now the Univer sity of Loughborough, by Mr. Edmund Francis D'Mello, of Pont Street, S.E. He claimed that the college had provided a course different from the syllabus it had advertised in a prospectus. [D'Mello v Loughborough College of Tech nology; Q.B.D.; O'Connor, J.; The Times, 17 June 1970.] Auctioneers not entitled to commission when premises are sold independently of them Defendants, manufacturers of radio sets in Dun- drum, Co. Dublin, sold one of their three factories in March 1968 to the chain store supermarket company, H. Williams & Co., for £212,500. The plaintiff auctioneers claim (a) £3,317-10-0 com mission at 2£ per cent on the sale price of the factory and (b) £1,358-15-0 expended on adver tisements in order to get a purchaser. In 1966, there was much correspondence between Mr. Murphy representing the plaintiffs and Dr. Digby representing the defendants. It was finally agreed in March 1967 as follows: (1)That the plaintiffs would be the sole agents of defendants. (2) That, upon negotiation of a successful sale, the plaintiffs were to be paid commission of 2| per cent. (3) That the asking price, after payment of commission, would be £240,000. (4) That the plaintiffs were authorised to ex­

pend £250 on advertising and publicity; all fur ther expenditure on this to be authorised by the defendants. (5) The defendants were entitled at their dis cretion to cancel the sole agency of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, as a result of expending £1,358-15-0 on publicity, and producing a brochure, got seventy-six inquiries for the factory; one of these inquiries was an offer for £210,000, from Associ ated Electrical Industries, if the premises were sold freehold. Meanwhile the defendants were negotiating independently with Messrs Williams, who finally agreed to acquire the factory for £212,500. During the trial, the plaintiffs conceded that the agreement did not debar the defendants from negotiating a sale directly with Messrs Williams, but nevertheless claimed 2£ per cent commission. In fact the initial negotiations with Messrs Williams had begun in February 1967 and they had inspected the factory before this agree ment had been concluded with the plaintiffs. Held, by Henchy J., that the plaintiff's claim in respect of commission should be dismissed, as there was no term in the contract with plaintiffs which precluded the defendants from selling indepen dently. The suggestion that there was an implied term in the contract is rejected. There was further more no express term that the plaintiffs would have a sole and exclusive right to sell during the agency. The plaintiffs were, however, entitled to £2353-15-0 for advertising and other expenses properly incurred by them. [Murphy, Buckley & Keogh Ltd. v Pye (Ireland) Ltd.; High Court; Henchy J.; Unreported; 30 July 1970.] COPYRIGHT When an architect is asked to improve a client's plans for a building and obtain planning permis sion the client is not necessarily entitled to use the architect's improvements in the building if the architect is not employed beyond the planning stage. His Lordship so held when awarding £500 damages to Mr. Frank Randolph Stovin-Bradford, chartered architect, of Amersham, against the . defendants, Volpoint Properties Ltd., a property company, and Uniment Ltd., for infringement of , copyright in his drawings. [Stovin-Bradford v Volpoint Properties Ltd.; Chancery Division; 28 July 1970.] .99 -