Agreements in Restraint of Trade
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01103.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1966 |
| Author | Peter G. Whiteman |
JAN.
1906
NOTES
OF
CASES 77
land.
.
.
.”
l2
Finally, their lordships called for reform of the
law in favour of the wife,
so
that
it
is to be hoped that some of
the present difficulties may be eradicated.
JEREMY
S.
WILLIAMS.
AGREEMENTS
IN
RESTRAINT
OF
mADE
THE usual terms of an agreement between
a
petrol supplier and
dealer
are
that the dealer undertakes to buy all the motor fuel and
other petroleum products for
his
garage from the particular supplier,
that he will stock and sell no other fuel and,
as
ancillary terms, that
he will only use the suppliers’ lubricants
in
his lubricating bay and,
further, that hc mill only display advertising materials relating to
the supplier’s brands of petrol and oil. Such a solus
”
agreement
was held by Bucklcy
J.
to be an unreasonable restraint of trade
in
Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd.
v.
Martin,’
a
decision which Mocatta
J.
refused to follow in
Esso
Petroleum
Co.
Ltd.
v.
Haver’s Garage
Three main issues arise in considering such agreements. First,
does
a
“
solus
”
agreement come within the purview and tests
applicable to covenants in restraint of trade, that is to say, the
Nordenfelt
doctrine? Secondly, what interest
is
the oil company
seeking to protect by the agreement? Finally, if the oil company
have an interest which they are reasonably entitled to have
protected, is the restraint imposed reasonable in the circumstances
?
The first question was, therefore, the applicability
of
the
Nordenfelt
doctrine to
“
solus
”
agrccments. Counsel
in
the
Petro-
jina
case had contended that the agreement was not
a
contract in
restraint
of
trade at all for the purposes of the
Nordenfelt
doctrine,
but
was
in fact
a
contract for the promotion of trade. For this
proposition he had rclicd on
Servais, Bouchard
v.
The Prince’s-
Hall
Restaurant
(
Limited),8
a
case,
it
is submitted, which
is
clearly
distinguishable on the facts,
as
the agreement in that case only
concerned the right of supplying
a
commodity (burgundy) which
wns not the staple commodity of the defendant’s trade
as
a
restaura-
teur. Further,
Foley
v.
Classique Coaches
may be distinguished
on
a
similar point, that the respondents were not primarily petrol
dealers. His lordship then arrived at the cmincntly obvious con-
clusion that the agreement clearly contained a restraint of trade,
for it limited the dcfendant
to
dealing in Petrofina’s goods and
‘deprived him of
a
free choice
of
the brands of petrol and other
petroleum products which he offered for sale at his filling station.
On
a
general economic basis, the agreement may have promoted
(Stourport)
Ltd.2
3
W.L.R.
latp.
18;
[1805]
2AllE.R.479atp.
483.
2
W.L.R.
1999; 1966
9
All
E.R.
176.
3
W.L.R.
409; lbG6]
20
T.L.R.
674
(&A).
All
E.R,
993.
4
[1934]
2
K.B.
1.
To continue reading
Request your trial