1939 (5) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wn JUDGMENT 1. The appellant company have carried on business since 1920 as chemical merchants. Until 1933 their business had been confined 1o industrial chemicals. In that year they entered into a contract for the purchase of agricultural chemicals which, it was provided, were to be sold only in certain parts of i he country, the sellers undertaking to debar all their other buyers from sell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid by way of agreed compensation for the of loss that business ; and, thirdly, that the GBP 4,500 was paid by way of compensation for sterilisation of a capital asset. It was further argued that the appellants had, by the contract, established for themselves, not only a source of supply, but also a market; that the sale of agricultural chemicals was a new and profitable field; and that in view of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on as was the case in Van den Berghs, Ltd. v. Clark. The appellants could always have sold agricultural chemicals, and they can still do so. The contract was made in the ordinary course of their business, although in a new field, and the exclusion of competition is an ordinary incident of such contracts and not, as it seems to me, analogous to a pooling agreement. It is clear that the dictum of Ro....