“INTENSIVE COMPETITION”

Taranaki Daily News, 12 September 1934, Page 7

“INTENSIVE COMPETITION”

CLAIM FOR ALLEGED INJURY. BUYER AND SELLER BEFORE COURT By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The case in which William Escott, the purchaser of “More Suds Sales Service,” is claiming an injunction and £lOO damages from William Thomas for an injury alleged to have been done to Escott by “intensive competition” since the settlement of a Supreme Court claim and counter-claim in May last was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Reed.

For the defence counsel said the judgments showed a condition of things in favour of Thomas, because there was established a breach of contract on which Escott’s rights disappeared. The judgments concluded the rights of the parties, bringing their litigation to an end. Because no reference to the question of competition had been made in the terms of settlement of the first litigation the court could not assume that Thomas would have agreed not to compete, since he was only receiving- £250 and not £lOOO for the business.

The plaintiff was not entitled as a matter of law to fix the price of soap arbitrarily as he sought to do, nor to refuse to be bound by the agreement. The plaintiff had his remedies for misrepresentation. They were either to rescind the agreement or apply for damages, but he did nothing until an action was brought against him, when he set up misrepresenattion as a defence to the action.

After hearing legal argument Mr. Justice Reed reserved judgment.