Correspondence and memoranda 153

such an examination would be carried out. Both sets of defendants were

held liable and damages were apportioned between them.
Possible defences Ms Connolly states that her garden is quite rough
terrain and that the grass was long. We need more details on this just
how rough is it? Theres a possible defence that the mower was not being
used for its proper purposes (i.e. contributory negligence).
Damages hard to say at present. Depends on injuries, recovery, and so
forth. Get medical report.
Loss of earnings what job does the claimant do and has she lost any
wages as result of accident?
Procedure write both to Handyman and Gardening Solutions for
information (what is this document the client refers to?), press clients
claim and ask for details of insurers. Should be possible to negotiate
settlement if they admit liability if not, sue.

MEMORANDA 12.7

General points 12.7.1

Memoranda (usually known as memos) are written internal communications that

advise or inform staff of new policies, procedures, events or decisions. They are
usually quite formal and impersonal in style.

Memos may be addressed to one other person or to a number of persons.

They may be put on a noticeboard for everyone to see, or circulated in internal
mail.

Layout 12.7.2

Firms often use headed paper for memos. This gives less information about the
firm than the letterhead for external correspondence, but indicates which
department has issued the memo.

A memo should state at the top of the first page:

the person(s) to whom they are addressed;

the person who wrote the memorandum;
the date;
the subject.

Important points or long lists of points are usually best presented using bullets ()
or numbers.
 154 Legal English

12.7.3 Content

A typical memo might be structured as follows:

The memo should have an appropriate title one that accurately reflects
the contents, and preferably one for which a file can easily be selected.

The first paragraph of the memo may be used to explain the background
to the issue that the memo refers to.

The main part of the memo should be used to explain concisely:

! what is going to happen;

! why it is going to happen;
! when it is going to happen;
! how it will affect people;
! who will be affected.

The next part of the memo should explain what should be done by
anyone affected.

The last part of the memo should advise staff where they can go for
an explanation and how to communicate their comments or
complaints.

The memorandum should be signed by the writer.

12.7.4 Example memorandum

Grange, Arthurs & Co Ltd

62 Martin Avenue
Sheffield

To: All employees

Date: 13 February 2008

From: Michael Bryanston

Subject: Litigation department move

You have no doubt heard that due to pressures on our office space resulting from
the firms rapid expansion it has become necessary to move some staff members
to another location.

The partners have decided that the whole of the litigation department will be
moved to new premises at 53 Smith Street, Liverpool. The relevant details of the
move are as follows:

1 The move will take place over the weekend of 12/13 April.

2 The members of staff who will be moving include John Stiles, Emily Lane,
Bernard Hill, Giles Flaxton, Mary Peebles and Larissa May.
 Correspondence and memoranda 155

3 Staff affected by the move are asked to pack their computers, books and
other work items into the storage boxes provided by the removal firm no later
than 4.00pm on Friday 11 April. If needed, more boxes can be obtained from
Jane Baxter.

4 An external IT contracting firm will visit the premises at 53 Smith Street on

Monday 14 April to set up the computers and establish the internal network.
Therefore we will have a training day for the whole firm, details of which will
be announced later.

If anyone has any questions regarding the move, please contact me.

[Signature]

Michael Bryanston, Senior Partner

Memorandum case study 12.7.5

Read the following texts about Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (which relate to
European competition law) and the Irish Sugar case and then do the exercise below.

Articles 81 and 82

Competition law includes a mixture of political and economic objectives. It aims to

perfect the common market by preventing undertakings from imposing practices
that undermine the removal of barriers to trade. The key provisions are Articles 81
and 82.

Article 81

Article 81 applies to arrangements between undertakings which may affect trade

between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention,
restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. It applies if
there is:

collusion between undertakings;

which affects trade between member states;
which has as its object or effect the distortion of competition within the
common market.

Such collusion may take the form of agreements between undertakings,

decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices. All collusion
caught by Article 81(1) is void, although there is the possibility of exemption under
Article 81(3).

Article 82

Article 82 applies to any abuse of a dominant position within the common market
or in a substantial part of it. . . in so far as it may affect trade between Member
156 Legal English

States. Dominant position is not defined in the Treaty, but the European Court of
Justice defined it in United Brands Co v Commission (1978) as:

A position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking, which enables it to

prevent competition being maintained on the relevant market by giving it the
power to behave, to an appreciable extent, independently of its competitors,
customers, and, ultimately, of its consumers.

Enforcement of European competition law operates on the basis of dual

vigilance, meaning that in theory at least it can be enforced at Community or
national level.

Case summary: Irish Sugar plc v Commission (1999)

In 1997, the Commission imposed a fine of !8.8 million on Irish Sugar plc, a
subsidiary of the Greencore Group. The decision against Irish Sugar concerned a
series of infringements that had taken place since 1985. The Commission found
that Irish Sugar, as the sole processor of sugar within Ireland had a 95 per cent
share of the Irish sugar market. The decision states that Irish Sugar has abused its
position on the Irish sugar market by seeking to restrict competition both from
imports of sugar from other Member States and from small sugar packers within
Ireland.

In the late 1980s Irish Sugar and its subsidiary Sugar Distributors Limited (SDL)
sought to restrict competition from imports of sugar from France and Northern
Ireland by offering selectively low prices to customers of an importer of French
sugar who swapped Irish Sugars own Siucra brand of packaged sugar for an
imported brand and offering selective border rebates to customers for packaged
sugar that were located close to the Northern Irish border.

Since at least 1985, Irish Sugar had offered rebates on purchases of bulk sugar to
industrial customers that exported part of their final product to other Member
States. These sugar export rebates varied between customers for the same
tonnage of sugar and varied over time without any consistent relationship to
sales volumes or currency changes. Both the practice of offering sugar export
rebates and the ad hoc manner in which the scheme was administered
discriminated against customers that supplied only the Irish market. The system
of rebates on exports to other Member States also distorted the common sugar
regime.

Since 1993, Irish Sugar had sought to restrict competition from small sugar
packers within Ireland by discriminating against them in the prices that it charged
for bulk sugar, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage relative both to
other customers and Irish Sugar itself. Irish Sugar also offered rebates to certain
wholesalers and food retailers that were dependent on increases in their
purchases of Irish Sugars own Siucra brand, thereby making it difficult for small
competitors to gain a foothold in the market.
 Correspondence and memoranda 157

Through its infringements Irish Sugar was able to maintain a significantly higher
price level for packaged retail sugar in Ireland compared with that in other
Member States, notably Northern Ireland, and was able to keep its ex-factory
prices, particularly for bulk sugar for domestic Irish consumption, among the
highest in the Community, to the detriment of both industrial and final consumers
in Ireland.

In setting the level of the fine the Commission took into account the fact that the
infringements represented a serious breach of Community law, that several had
been recognised as abuses of a dominant position by the European Court of
Justice and that they had taken place over a long period of time.

Write a memo in which you should refer to the summaries of Articles 81 & 82

EXERCISE 29
and the Irish Sugar case above and address the following questions.

A model answer can be found in the answer key at the back of the book.

Alternatively, visit the Companion Website to access this question

online.

(1) What are the sugar export rebates?

(2) What objections were there to the sugar export rebates?

(3) What was ad hoc about them?

(4) Which article was Irish Sugar plc breaching?

(5) How was it breaching this article?

(6) What was the rationale of the Commissions decision?