Trader Cannot Charge Less than Dunlop Prices
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'THE trader who flew a pirate flag over 1 his premises as a symbol of his opposition to price restrictions by motor accessory manufacturers lost a battle with the Dunlop Rubber Co., Ltd., last week. Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob, in the Chancery Division, granted Dunlop's an -injunction restraining Mr. John Charles Clark, Hui-1E1y Road, Bournemouth, from selling their tyres at cut prices.
In a reserved judgment, the judge found that when Mr. Clark's Longlife Battery Depot, Bournemouth, sold a 16 6s. Dunlop tyre for L5 Ils., Dunlop's letters patent were infringed. Mr. Clark would be restrained from selling or supplying their tyres on any terms other than those announced in Dunlop's price lists.
He also directed an inquiry as to any damages recoverable by the tyre company against Mr. Clark.
Dunlop's had put in an alternative claim to enforce their price conditions against Mr. Clark tinder section 25 of the 1956 Restrictive Trade Practices Act. However, the judge ruled that a tyre which was sold by Longlife to a Dunlop representative had been supplied to the trader before Section 25 of the Act came into force.
He said Mr. Clark. had six retail shops wbere he had sold accessories since 1955, and he advertised new tyres at 12+ per cent, below list prices. Dunlop's complained to him and sent him a copy of their price conditions.
Later a representative bought . a cutprice tyre, and it was Mr. Clark's claim that, because one of Dunlop's represe.n-. tatives agreed to a sale below list price, the conditions of sale had been waived. Such a contention' was misconceived.
The judge ordered that Mr. Clark should pay half the costs.