CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Evening Star, Issue 21828, 18 September 1934, Page 6

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ALLEGED BREACH DF CONTRACT ADVERTISING OH POST OFFICE FENCE i case with some unusual features came before Mr ■). R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Magistrate s Court yesterday. The plaintiffs were Prudential Investments Limited, and Reginald James Kingsland, who proceeded against the Fletcher Construction Company Ltd., claiming £3OO damages for alleged breach of contract. The statement of claim, alleged that the company agreed to grant the plaintiff's the contract for advertising on the hoardings round the new Post Office site; that Kingsland interviewed or caused to be -interviewed various members of tbe City Council, and procured the council's consent to the exhibition of advertisements on the boardings; and that the defendant subsequently refused to grant the rights. Alternatively it was claimed that the defendant company, by its own action, put it out of the power of the plain tiffs to obtain the consent of the. City Council. Mr \V. 1). Taylor appeared for tbe plaintiffs, and Mr J. S. Sinclair for the defendant company. Mr Taylor ? in opening the case, outlined the history of the negotiations between Kingsland and the Fletcher Construction Company, and referred to certain telegrams that had passed between the parties. A recommendation by the General Committee of the City Council reported adversely upon Fletcher’s application for permission to advertise on the hoardings. When rhe matter came before the council, Cr Jones moved and Cr Scott seconded, that the matter he referred back to the committee for further consideration, ami this was adopted. Kingsland on February 10 sent a telegram to Fletcher telling him that the committee had recommended the refusal ol his request. Kingsland said that a friend considered that he could influence the council and asked whether, if he could secure the council’s permission, Fletcher would give him the contract “ as previously approved,” he received the following telegram in reply; “Yes. Will grant you advertising rights if you can secure permission.” Having got that telegram, Kingsland proceeded to act. He interviewed the mayor, repeating what he told Crs Jones and Scott, and His Worship said that -the matter would have his support. Kingsland also got into touch with Cr Shepherd, whose attitude was adverse to the proposal. Kingsland knew how Cr Marlow would vote because he had supported the amendment that the clause be referred back and had said that it would be better to use the fence for advertising if it were artistic than to have it as it was. The day before the council met to receive the further report of the .committee, Kingsland wrote to Fletcher; “ I have been very busy, and the friend referred to had also done his best. .1 am of opinion that the council will approve, in which case I am relying upon you to settle on Thursday morning.” Mr Taylor proceeded to point out how the council on the casting vote of the mayor had agreed to grant Fletcher’s application for a permit. A letter from the defendant company, however, stated that since the exchange oh wires the committee had recommended that the permit should not be granted. Tbe company had written to the council making an offer to hand over 50 per cent, of the contract price with a minimum of £IOO. “In the event of the council granting authority,” the letter added, “ the letting of the advertising space will require to be the subject of negotiation. Therefore we do not bind ourselves to any party.” It would be shown, counsel added, that Fletcher’s offer of £IOO almost “ wrecked the ship,” one councillor referring to it as a bribe. The council went on to ignore the offer of £IOO and dealt first with the permit, and accepted the offer of £IOO by an independent resolution. In reply to the magistrate Mr Taylor said that if the offer of £IOO assisted the council in any way in coining to a decision his clients were entitled to take advantage of it. The date of February 28, when Kingsland had used all his efforts to gain permission, was too late a stage at which to withdraw the offer. Counsel submitted that the telegrams set out the true position. Kingsland’s telegram had to be read in this form: “ We offer to use our efforts with the council to get permission. Will yon give us the rights if permission is granted?” He submitted that the offer was accepted and that a complete contract was established. It would be shown that the plaintiffs expected substantial profits. Evidence was called in support of the claim, the witnesses including the Mayor ( Rev. E. T. Cox) and C'F Scott.

For the defence. Mr Sinclair stated that there was no contract, and that there was no inducement of the council by the plaintiffs such as to entitle them to a contract if one had been agreed upon. The defence also raised the Statute of Francis, contending that there was no identification of contract in the telegrams exchanged which would satisfy the Statute. Fletcher would say that he was approached by two people— Kingsland and a man named Frucle, the latter of whom had had considerable experience of advertising of this nature. Therefore specifications of tender suitable to both parties were drawn up. and a copy was handed to both. When Kingsland and Kinmont called at Fletcher’s office with a suggested agreement ho told them that the matter could not he considered until the next day. when, in fact, Frude’s tender was accepted, and the plaintiffs were informed that theirs had not been done. ft was the contention of the defence that the “ contract as previously approved ” referred to in Kingslaml's telegram was the contract with Frucle. but there was no clear identification of any contract. The only evidence in support of Kingsland's claim that he induced the council was that of the Mayor, and counsel contended that this was not strong enough to support the claim, but for the plaintiff’s intervention he would have voted against the granting of the license. In this connection it was important to know liow he voted in the committee which recommended that the permit be not granted. He could not assist the court in this direction, and. in fact, had no idea of what attitude he adopted in committee. In any case there was nothing to imply that Fletcher could not himself induce the council to act. “ Councillors can protest as much as they like.” Mr Sinclair continued, “ but we submit that the inducement offered by Fletcher was a material factor in causing the council to give its consent. It is true that some councillors did protest and said that they were

not influenced at all. If that was so. why did they not say: ‘To prove that we are genuine, we will grant the application and will not accept this bait that has been thrown nut to ns.’ ” Counsel suggested that no weight could bo given to the protests of the council that it was almost insulted by the offer of Mr Fletcher. The Magistrate : Von suggest that it was a tempting bait? k Mr Sinclair: 1 do. I submit that it was largely an inducing factor. Evidence was given by witnesses lor the defence, and the case was tlien adjourned sine die to enable Mr Taylor to call C'v F. Jones, M.P.