1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
"Transfer" Case Taken to Appeal Court L AST Friday, Mr. Henry
Page 95
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Lee, of London Road, Hilton, Hunts, appealed, before the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Romer and Scott, in the Court of Appeal, against the de:. cision of Mr. Justice MacKinnon, in the King's Bench Division, in favour of the plaintiffs in an action in which they asked for an order that an agreement made with Mr. Lee for taking over his business by Whippet Coaches, Ltd., Market Hill Street, St. Ives, was binding on Mr. Lee.
The plaintiffs were Whippet Coaches, Ltd., and Mr. Harold Wilson Frost, of Hallwood, Rettering. They further asked that Mr. Lee should be restrained from applying for, or opposing aPplications by the company for, licences; or disposing of any part of his business to anybody but Whippet Coaches, Ltd.
Mr, Lee's contention was that the agreement was not binding on him, as it did not truly represent an oral agreement previously made between him and Mr. Frost.
Mr. Justice MacRinnon held that Mr. Lee deliberately entered into the agreement sued upon.
.Mr, H. G. Garland, for Mr. Lee, said the appeal was against that part of the order of Mr. Justice Macl-Cinnon in which he made a declaration that Mr. Lee was bound by the contract and gave damages for repudiation. The appeal was really against the form
in which the order was drawn up. The respondents were asserting before the Traffic Commissioners that the Court had ordered Mr. Lee to perform the contract, whereas, in fact, the judge refused an order for specific perform. ance.
The Master of the Rolls, in his judgment, said that Whippet Coaches, Ltd., was a company formed to acquire Mr. Lee's business, and the agreement provided for that company obtaining from the Traffic Commissioners the licence' held by Mr, Lee.
The rights of the plaintiffs under the judgment was to have their damages assessed, and the operative part of the judgment should have been limited tr an order that the 'plaintiffs recovei damages and costs. The declaration ir the order with regard to the agreemeni being binding was unnecessary and generally speaking, would have beer innocuous. But apparently the plaintiffs desired to use the judgmen. as involving the proposition that the agreement was still binding on Mr. Lee The judge dearly intended that fin only remedy he gave was a remedy it damages.
The appeal would be allowed witl costs and the order would be amendee by striking out the paragraph relatini to the agreement being binding on th defendant.
The Lords Justices agreed.