Dunlop Pneumatic Tire Co Ltd v Selfridge & amp; Co. Ltd. UKHL 1 (April 26, 1915), [1915] AC 847 is a case of English contract law, with relevance to English competition law decided at the House of Lords. This stipulates that an agreement for the maintenance of the resale price can not be applied as a matter of contract ownership rights.
Should not be confused with Dunlop Pneumatic Tire Co Ltd v New Garage & amp; Motor Co Ltd , a separate decision from House of Lords in the previous year relating to maintenance agreement of the same resale price but ruling on the concept of liquidated damage.
Under the modern law of the 1998 Competition Law or EU competition law, such agreements will be regulated as anti-competitive agreements.
Video Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
Fakta
Dunlop makes tires. It does not want them to be sold cheaply but to maintain a standard resale price. He agrees with the dealers (in this case, Dew & amp; Co.) not to sell them below the suggested retail price. It's also a bargain for merchants to get the same business from their retailers (in this case, Selfridge). If the retailer does indeed sell below the selling price, they must pay Ã, Â £ 5 per tire in the liquidated compensation to Dunlop. Dunlop is the third party of the contract between Selfridge and Dew. When Selfridge sells the tires below the agreed price, Dunlop sues to enforce the contract with orders and claim damages. Selfridge argues that Dunlop can not enforce the contractual burden between Dunlop and Dew, which Selfridge does not approve of.
In the hearing, the first-level judges, found in support of Dunlop. When appealing, the damage and orders are reversed, saying that Selfridge is not a perpetrator or agent and therefore not bound. The matter was brought to the supreme court, the House of Lords Judicial Committee, as to whether Dunlop could be compensated by Selfridge without contractual relationships - unanimously (Viscount Haldane LC, Dunedin Lords, Atkinson, Parker of Waddington, Sumner and Parmoor) it can not.
Maps Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
Judgment
Viscount Haldane, based his argument on three basic principles of law:
- First, the privacy doctrine requires that only parties to a contract can sue.
- Secondly, the doctrine of consideration requires a person who is not under contract with a seal only to enforce it if there is a consideration of the promise to the promissee.
- Third, agency doctrine requires that an unnamed principal in the contract (an undisclosed subject) can only be prosecuted if the promoter is contracted as an agent.
In the application for the facts, Haldane could not find a consideration between Dunlop and Selfridge, nor could it find any indication of an agent relationship between Dew and Selfridge, which separate considerations of the contract paid by Selfridge to Dew need to have been found.. As a result, Dunlop's actions must fail.
See also
- English contract law
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tire Co Ltd v New Garage & amp; Motor Co [1915] AC 79, concerning the liquidated damage.
Note
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments