Contract Test Case Heard
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DROUGHT with the object of 1..) securing an authoritative interpretation of Section 7 (1) of the 1933 Act, the appeal of Mr. Edwin Clark, of Aveley, against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority's refusal to grant him a Contract A licence for 10 vehicles, was heard by the Appeal Tribunal, in London, on Tuesday. Mr. H. Norman Letts, for Mr. Clark, said that if the decision were adverse, the association which had instructed him (A.R.O.) wished to seek amendment of the section.
Clark had submitted to the Authority a contract between himself and Hornchurch Urban District Council, executed under seal, for the hire of vehicles during a continuous period of a year. A supplementary agreement provided for their exclusive use by the council. The ptincipal contract speci fied that the council " will " require to hire vehicles, but permitted the local authority to hire from other operators.
The Licensing Authority held that such a contract imposed no obligation on the council and was not a suitable basis for the issue of a Contract. A licence. The fact that the agreement was sealed did not alter the position in this respect.
According to the Licensing Authority:said Mr. Letts, he had a discretion to grant or refuse applications under Section 7 (1); moreover, the trader should undertake an obligation to use the vehicles concerned. Mr. Letts argued that, under the Act, it did not matter whether the trader used the vehicles or not. Continuity, as expressed in the Act, referred to the period of the contract and not to the use of the vehicles authorized.