Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Commercial - From: 1960 To: 1969

This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Gardano and Giampieri v Greek Petroleum George Mamidakis and Co [1961] 2 Lloyds Rep 259
1961

McNair J
Contract, Transport, Commercial
The shipment was made under a c&f sale contract, a straight bill of lading, pursuant to a charterparty between the defendant and the claimant shipowner, Gardano. The bill named the Greek Ministry as consignee. The shipowner argued, relying on the 1855 Act that the shipper had lost its title to sue by the transfer of the bill of lading to the consignee. Held: That argument failed. The section did not operate where property had passed under the express terms of the sale contract not on or by reason of the consignment but ex the loading installation. In an ordinary contract of sale in the traditional c.i.f or c. & f. form, the seller discharges his obligations as regards delivery by tendering a bill of lading covering the goods. The contract is one which, though not a sale, is a sale of goods performed by delivery of documents, and the property passes when the documents are taken up.
Bills of Lading Act 1855 1
1 Citers


 
Stadium Finance Ltd v Robbins [1962] 2 QB 664
1962

Ormerod LJ, Danckwerts LJ
Commercial
A motor car was goods for the purposes of the Act. The word “goods” in the section does not appear to have anything other than the ordinary meaning, there is no reason why (a motor car) does not come within the definition “goods”. The word “goods” must include all chattels of which physical possession is possible, notwithstanding that they are not easily moveable.
Factors Act 1889
1 Citers


 
Kledingverkoopbedrijf De Geus En Uitdenbogerd v Robert Bosch Gmbh and Van Rijn R-13/61; [1962] EUECJ R-13/61; [1962] ECR 47
6 Apr 1962
ECJ

Commercial
1. Procedure - preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court exclusively dependent on the existence of a request
(EEC Treaty, article 177)
2. Procedure - preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the EEC treaty - request by a national court - form not laid down in the treaty
(EEC treaty, article 177)
3. Procedure - preliminary ruling on interpretation of articles 85 et seq. Of the EEC treaty - justified request
(EEC treaty, article 177)
4. Procedure - preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - limits
(EEC treaty, article 177)
5. Competition - article 85 of the EEC treaty - immediately applicable
6. Competition - agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty - no automatic nullity - principle of legal certainty
7. Competition - agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty - legal consequences of this provision before the entry into force of the implementing regulation
8. Competition - agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty - implementing regulation - entry into force - legal consequences
9. Competition - agreements and decisions envisaged in article 85 of the EEC treaty - effect as regards nullity of agreements and decisions not notified
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
British Basic Slag Limited v Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements [1963] 1 WLR 727; [1963] 2 All ER 807
1963
CA
Wilmer, Diplock LJJ
Crime, Commercial
The court considered the meaning of section 6 of the 1956 Act. It was argued that the trial Judge had erred in holding that an arrangement within the meaning of the expression exists when, by communications between the parties, “each has intentionally aroused in the other an expectation that he will act in a certain way”. It was submitted that the expression also required “that there must be mutuality in the acceptance of rights and obligations”. Held:
Willmer LJ said: "I think it is highly significant that Parliament did not see fit to include any definition of ‘arrangement.’ I infer from this that it was intended that the word should be construed in its ordinary or popular sense. Though it may not be easy to put into words, everybody knows what is meant by an arrangement between two or more parties. If the arrangement is intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings, as in the case where it is made for good consideration, it may no doubt properly be described as an agreement. But the Act of 1956 clearly contemplates that there may be arrangements which are not enforceable by legal proceedings, but which create only moral obligations or obligations binding in honour. This seems to me to be entirely consistent with the dictum of Upjohn J. to which I have already referred. Nor do I consider that there is any inconsistency between that and the view expressed by the judge in the present case. For when each of two or more parties intentionally arouses in the others an expectation that he will act in a certain way, it seems to me that he incurs at least a moral obligation to do so. An arrangement as so defined is therefore something ‘whereby the parties to it accept mutual rights and obligations.’"
Diplock LJ said that there were many ways in which arrangements might be made: "it is sufficient to constitute an arrangement between A and B, if (1) A makes a representation as to his future conduct with the expectation and intention that such conduct on his part will operate as an inducement to B to act in a particular way, (2) such representation is communicated to B, who has knowledge that A so expected and intended, and (3) such representation or A’s conduct in fulfilment of it operates as an inducement, whether among other inducements or not, to B to act in that particular way." and
"Arrangement is not a term about; under section 6(3) of the Act. I agree with my Lords that it bears the meaning of that an ordinary educated man would ascribe to it. It involves a meeting of minds because under s.6(1) it has to be an arrangement ‘between two or more persons’ and, since it must be an arrangement ‘under which restrictions are accepted by two or more parties’, it involves mutuality and that each party, assuming he is a reasonable and conscientious man, would regard himself as being in some degree under a duty whether moral or legal to conduct himself in a particular way or not to conduct himself in a particular way as the case may be, at any rate so long as the other party or parties conducted themselves in the way contemplated by the arrangement."
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 6
1 Citers


 
Re Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers' Application (1963) LR 3RP 462
1963
CA
Willmer LJ
Commercial
Willmer LJ said that a particular agreement did not involve the acceptance of restrictions: "This, in the picturesque phrase used by [counsel for the Association], did not have the effect of closing any door that was previously open to the contractors; its effect was merely to open a door through which the selected contractor might pass."
1 Citers


 
Etablissements Consten S a R L and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v Commission of the European Economic Community C-56/64; [1965] EUECJ C-56/64
13 Jul 1966
ECJ

Commercial
Europa Individual measure adopted by an institution - authentic text (EEC treaty, article 189) 2. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - application of article 85 of the EEC treaty - proceedings before the commission - prior notification of the parties concerned - purpose 3. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - articles 85 and 86 of the EEC treaty - no distinct areas of application of these provisions according to the level in the economy at which the undertakings operate 4. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - agreements affecting competition - concept (EEC treaty, article 85(1)) 5. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - sole distributorship contracts - prohibition possible under article 85(1) of the EEC treaty 6. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - agreements which may affect trade between the member states - concept (EEC treaty, article 85(1)) 7. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - agreements preventing, restricting or distorting competition - criteria of evaluation (EEC treaty, article 85(1)) 8. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - sole distributorship contracts - absence of a prohibition by categories - prohibition may apply where agreements isolate national markets 9. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - agreements restricting competition - extent of prohibition - limitation to clauses amounting to an infringement and severable from the agreement as a whole (EEC treaty, article 85(1) and (2)) 10. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - national industrial property rights - powers of the commission to prevent the improper use thereof (EEC treaty, articles 36, 85, 222, 234, regulation no 17, article 3) 11. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - sole distributorship contracts - concessionaires not parties to an agreement which is challenged - no obligation on the commission to cause the latter to participate automatically in the proceedings before the commission (EEC treaty, article 85) 12. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - cartels - prohibition - exemption - proof of requirements - exercise of powers of the commission - judicial review of commission's evaluations - purpose (EEC treaty, article 85(3)) 13. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - cartels - prohibition - exemption - conditions of grant - improvement in the production or distribution of the goods in question - duties of the commission (EEC treaty, article 85(3)) (EEC treaty, article 85(3)) 1. Where a measure adopted by an institution is directed to addressees designated by name, only the text which is notified to them is authentic. 2. During administrative proceedings before the commission concerning the application of article 85 of the EEC treaty the parties concerned must be informed of the facts upon which the complaints of the commission are based. It is not however necessary that the entire content of the file should be communicated to them. 3. Neither the wording of article 85 nor that of article 86 gives any ground for holding that distinct areas of application are to be assigned to each of the two articles according to the level in the economy at which the undertakings operate. 4. Competition may be distorted within the meaning of article 85(1) of the EEC treaty not only by agreements which limit it as between the parties but also by agreements which prevent or restrict the competition which might take place between one of them and third parties. For this purpose it is irrelevant whether the parties to the agreement are or are not on a footing of equality as regards their position and function in the economy. 5. A sole distributorship contract may, without involving an abuse of a dominant position, affect trade between the member states and at the same time have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, thus falling under the prohibition of article 85(1) of the EEC treaty. 6. The concept of ' agreements...Which may affect trade between member states ' is intended to define, in the law governing cartels, the boundary between the areas respectively covered by community law and national law. In this connection what is particularly important is whether the agreement is capable of constituting a threat, either direct or indirect, actual or potential, to freedom of trade between member states in a manner which might harm the attainment of the objectives of a single market between states. Thus the fact that an agreement encourages an increase, even a large one, in the volume of trade between states is not sufficient to exclude the possibility that the agreement may ' affect ' such trade within the meaning of article 85 of the EEC treaty. 7. For the purpose of the application of article 85(1) there is no need to take account of the concrete effects of an agreement when it has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. 8. Sole distributorship contracts made between producer and independent concessionaire do not necessarily, as such, fall under the prohibition of article 85(1). Nevertheless an agreement between producer and distributor which might tend to restore the national divisions in trade between member states might be such as to frustrate the most fundamental objectives of the community. 9. The finding of an infringement of article 85(1) must be limited only to those parts of a contract which constitute the infringement as long as they are severable from the rest of the agreement. 10. Articles 36, 222 and 234 of the EEC treaty do not exclude any influence whatever of community law on the exercise of national industrial property rights. The community rules on competition do not allow the improper use of rights under national trade - mark law in order to frustrate the community's law on cartels. 11. When a sole distributorship contract is challenged before it, the commission is not obliged automatically to require other concessionaires who are not parties to that agreement to take part in the proceedings. 12. The commission may not confine itself to requiring from undertakings proof of the fulfilment of the requirements for the grant of the exemption from the prohibition in article 85(3) of the EEC treaty, but must play its part, using the means available to it, in ascertaining the relevant facts and circumstances. Judicial review of complex economic evaluations by the commission concerning exemption from the prohibition on cartels must take account of their nature by confining itself to an examination of the relevance of the facts and the legal consequences which the commission deduces therefrom. This review must in the first place be carried out in respect of the reasons given for the decisions which must set out the facts and considerations on which the said evaluations are based. 13. The improvement in the production and distribution of goods, which is required for the grant of exemption cannot be identified with all the advantages which the parties to the agreement obtain from it in their production or distribution activities, since the content of the concept of improvement is not required to depend upon the special features of the contractual relationships in question. This improvement must in particular show appreciable objective advantages of such a character as to compensate for the disadvantages which they cause in the field of competition. In its evaluation of the relative importance of the various factors submitted for its consideration, the commission must judge their effectiveness by reference to an objectively ascertainable improvement in the production and distribution of the goods and decide whether the resulting benefit suffices to support the conclusion that the consequent restrictions upon competition are indispensable.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd; HL 1968 - [1968] AC 269; [1967] UKHL 1; [1967] 1 All ER 699

 
 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic; ECJ 10-Dec-1968 - C-7/68; [1968] EUECJ C-7/68

 
 Vine Products Ltd v Mackenzie and Co Ltd (the Sherry Case); ChD 1969 - [1969] RPC 1
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.