AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Contract Licence: A uthority 'Was Misled

9th March 1962, Page 47
9th March 1962
Page 47
Page 47, 9th March 1962 — Contract Licence: A uthority 'Was Misled
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE Metropolitan Deputy Licensing I Authority, Mr. C. J. Macdonald, criticized a customer who attempted to cancel a contract --under which a haulier had obtained a contract A licence for five vehicles—only three months after entering into the contract.

Mr. Macdonald was dealing with an application by Mead Brothers (Kingsbury), Ltd., of Kenton, Middlesex, who were seeking to vary their A licence by the addition of five vehicles which had been operating under a contract A licence for G.E.C. (Domestic Equipment), Ltd.

The case originally came before the Deputy Authority in February when he was told that the reason for the application was because G.E.C. wished to terminate the contract.

It was then explained that the applicants had operated six vehicles for Coldair, Ltd., a subsidiary of G.E.C., for nine years. In June of last year it was decided that all distribution should be handed over to G.E.C. (Domestic Equipment), Ltd., and a new contract was entered into between the applicants and G.E.C., for five vehicles, and a contract A licence subsequently issued by the Licensing Authority.

Last October the applicants were told by G.E.C. that because they had overestimated their transport requirements they wished to be released from the terms of the contract.

Mr. E. Thomas, manager and director of the applicant company, said that it had been arranged that the contract should remain in force until the present application had been determined. They required the full amount of vehicles to be transferred to enable them to meet requirements from other regular customers, and also for G.E.C.

Questioned by Mr. Macdonald about the contract, Mr. Thomas said that they had not sought any compensation for the cancellation of the contract.

When the case was resumed on Monday. Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for the applicants, submitted that the application was not a "back door entry" into the industry. Virtually the contract had been going on for nine years.

Mr. R. Oswald, for the B.T.C. (objecting) conceded that a prima fade case had been made out but, on the figures of earnings produced, it appeared that five vehicles .would be in excess of requirements.* Undertakings by customers that there would be no abstraction of traffic from the B.T.C. were not acceptable.

: In a lengthy decision, Mr. Macdonald said that the application differed from the normal type of contract to A licence transfer in that the customer had sought to abandon the contract before its term had *expired. The case was peculiar, moreover, because, instead of the applicants seeking a smaller number of open A vehicles than they operated under the contract, they sought to retain all the vehicles.

Requirements Over-estimated

Dealing with the contract licence, Mr. Macdonald said that when it was granted by the Authority the contract had been accepted in good faith. "It appears now, in the light of events, although not intentionally, that the Licensing Authority was in fact misled," he continued. They had been told that G.E.C. had over-estimated requirements, which demonstrated that the very greatest care ought to be exercised in making contracts for transport.

"It seems extraordinary that not three months after the contract was arranged the estimating was so had that a suggestion was made to abandon the contract. Whether the Authority will require something more when he gets a contract from G.E.C. in future. I do not know," he added.

He felt that nothing on earth could alter the fact that the contract remained in force for a continuous period of one year from June I. There was no doubt that what was intended was a cancellation, but no letter had been forwarded to the Authority from G.E.C. about this.

He sympathized with the applicants for looking for some way in which they could utilize the vehicles, but whichever way the figures were viewed there was a definite decrease in earnings in the past year compared with the previous year. The case had not been proved to the full and he would grant four out of the five vehicles requested.


comments powered by Disqus