" Dunlop Bring
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
‘6" Cut-price" Action AFTER a four-day hearing last week, Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob, in the Chancery Division reserved judgment in an action brought by the Dunlop Rubber Co., Ltd., for an injunction to prevent Mr. J. C.Clark, of Huntly Road, Bournemouth, proprietor of the Longlife Batfery Depot, Wimborne Road, Bournemouth, from selling their tyres at prices other than those laid down by them.
Mr. Clark was stated to own accessory retailing businesses also at Plymouth, Portsmouth, Bristol, Hanley and Birkenhead.
Mr. Lionel Edwards, Q.C., for the plaintiffs, alleged that the Longlife Battery Depot had infringed Dunlop's limited licence and their letters patent. They claimed also that they were entitled to enforce price conditions under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.
When the plaintiffs applied for an interlocutory injunction against Mr. Clark in January, 1957, he gave an interim undertaking to remain in force until the action was tried, but he refused to give any permanent undertaking. He was now defending the action.
Mr. F. W. Beney, Q.C., for Mr. Clark, said that a particular tyre which Dunlop alleged had been bought from I.ong life at a cut price was made and sold by Dunlop before the Restrictive Trade Practices Act came into force. He argued that the Act did not apply to sales made by a supplier before the Act came into operation. He also claimed that by sending an employee to Mr. Clark's premises to buy a tyre at a cut price, Dunlop had waived their conditions as to resale prices.
Mr. Clark said he did not see Dunlop's price, list or printed business arrangements until November, 1956. He was never on the register of authorized tyre dealers. After receiving price lists, he told Dunlop that he would no longer sell their tyres unless specially ordered, and then only at the full prices. He instructed his managers accordingly.
Mr. Edwards, in his final speech, submitted that Longlife Battery Depot had sold a number of Dunlop tyres below the manufacturers' price. Throughout 1955-56 Mr. Clark had known the price conditions, but did not try to discover whether they could be legally enforced. Counsel argued that Dunlop had to prove only that Mr. Clark knew of the existence of the conditions.
Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob said that he would give judgment in writing by yesterday.