Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PRESENT
1. LORD DUNEDIN 2. LORD ATKINSON 3. LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON 4. LORD SUMNER 5. LORD PARMOOR
tyres to the Defendant, Selfridge & Co Ltd on the same terms and conditions but without gaining any written undertaking from them. Later on Selfridge and Co Ltd sold those tyres below the recommended price hence Dunlop and Co Ltd sued to enforce the contract by injunction and claimed its damages while Selfridge argued it could not enforce the contract between itself and Dew and Co and had not agreed to the conditions.
PLAINTIFFS ARGUMENTS
Dunlops point of view was that since the company had clearly stated in its terms and conditions that the sale of the tyres cannot be held below the price recommended as per its resale price maintenance (RPM) scheme, Selfridge is responsible for not abiding by them and thus it claims injunction against Selfridge & Co Ltd.
DEFENDANTS ARGUMENTS
Viscount Haldane; the defendants lawyer, claimed that Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres & Co Ltd is not entitled to sue Selfridge and he based his argument on two fundamental principles in law which were significant enough for the lords to make their decision. Doctrine of Privity This requires that only a party within a contract can sue and be sued. Doctrine of Agency This requires that the principal not named in the contract can only be sued if the promisee was contracted as an agent.
DECISION
In application to the facts, the Lords could not find any consideration between Dunlop and Selfridge, nor could he find any indication of an agency relationship between Dew and Selfridge. Consequently, Dunlop's action to sue Selfridge for injunction and damages ended in the Selfridge wining the case.
RECOMMENDATION
After carefully analyzing the facts and figures available on the internet regarding the law suit we have come up with a suggestion for the case.
-
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres and Company limited should have filed a law suit against Dew and Company since it failed to acquire an undertaking from the Defendant that it will abide by the terms and conditions set by the plaintiff who afterwards may have taken action against the defendant since Dew was engaged in the dealings with Selfridge, not Dunlop.