The Gazette 1967/71

198 / 736

Horseplay at School
At a mixed school of 900 pupils between 11 and
18, a physical education instructor placed a 9-
foot length of discarded elastic 'rope' (from a type
of trampoline) neatly coiled in the bottom of an
open, low-lying waste paper bin in a loggia where
pupils congregated near the playground. The fol
lowing morning at the beginning of a 20 minute
school break the elastic was taken from the bin
by some younger children and used in horseplay
by them and older boys from some 7 or 8 minutes
until one end of the elastic rope stuck the eye
of a bystanding pupil so that he suffered, in effect,
loss of its vision. He brought an action for
damages for negligence against the authority
responsible for the school, contending that they
should have foreseen that, by leaving the elastic
in the bin, some injury might be done to pupils
at the school, and that if sufficient supervision
had been exercised the horseplay would have
been stopped before the accident happened. The
general standard of discipline at the school was
high, and 2 members of the staff on supervisory
duty during the break, who were, as normal, en
gaged for about the first 10 minutes in seeing
that trie school buildings were clear of pupils,
were assisted in maintaining discipline by 12
senior pupils.
It was held that the standard of duty of care
of a school-master which a reasonably careful
and prudent father would take of his own children
was helpful in considering individual instructions
to individual children in a school, but when app
lied to an incident of horseplay in a school of
900 pupils was somewhat unrealistic if not un
helpful. In the context of the action the school
master's duty, bearing in mind the known pro
pensities of boys or girls between the ages of 11
and 18, was to take all reasonable and proper
steps to prevent any of the pupils under his care
from suffering injury from inanimate objects,
from the actions of their fellow pupils, or from
a combination of the two. The standard was high.
Since the elastic was attractive to youngsters and
the possibility was foreseeable that some physical
injury might be caused by horse-play with it, the
defendants were liable for major unforeseen in
jury. Had the system of supervision been working
properly and the horseplay had been stopped
within 2 or 3 minutes of its inception by the
younger boys, the accident would not have oc-
cured. The defendants had fallen short of the
high standard demanded of them. Judgment for
the plaintiff.
(Beaumont v. Surrey County Council. 112. S.J.
704).
Cheque as Valuable Consideration
The plaintiff agreed to lend £1650 to H., a friend
of his provided that H. arranged for the de
fendant to draw a cheque for £1655 in the
plaintiff's favour, and for that cheque to be in
the plaintiff's possession before the cheque, which
the plaintiff would draw in favour of H. was
presented for payment. On July 22, 1960 (a
Friday) the plaintiff gave H. a cheque for £1650,
which H. presented for payment, but the plaintiff
told the bank manager to stop payment on it
until authorised by him. On July 26th, H. ob
tained a cheque for £1655 from the defendant
in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff then
authorised the bank to pay H. the cheque for
£1650. Meanwhile, H. gave the defendant his
own cheque for £1655, but this was dishonoured.
When the plaintiff presented the defendant's
cheque for £1650 for payment, this cheque also
was dishonoured. So the plaintiff sued the de
fendant on the cheque and claimed that under the
Bills of Exchange Act 1882, s.27(2), he was "a
holder for value as regards the acceptor and all
parties to the Bill who became parties" before
value was given for the bill. The defendant con
tended that the plaintiff was not a holder for
value because no valuable consideration had
passed directly between the plaintiff and the de
fendant.
It was held by the Court of Appeal isting
of Danckwerts, Diplock and Sachs, L.JJ.) on
March 12th 1968 that the action eded.
There was nothing in s.27 sub section (2) of the
Act of 1882 which required that the value should
have been given directly by the holder (i.e. the
plaintiff) to the drawer (i.e. the defendant) so
long as value had been given. Consideration had
been given by the plaintiff to H. for the cheque
and as a result the plaintiff acquired possession
of the cheque and so became a "holder" of it
within s.2 of the Act of 1882 and accordingly
the plaintiff was a holder for value.
(Diamond v. Graham [1968] 2 All E.R. 909
Law Journal, vol. 118, No. 5346, p. 660)
Sale of Goods : undisclosed foreign principal
An undisclosed foreign principal can under the
law merchant sue and be sued on a contract
negotiated with English sellers by English agents.
But where the foreign buyer buys goods by des
cription for re-sale in the markets of his own
country which he knows, but which the seller
does not know, it is not to be inferred that the
buyer is relying on the sellers skill and judgment
56