555 / 736
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
-