company law w1 case law

Question 1

Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson (1875)

Answer 1

The def had a contract to sell ‘all future patent rights’ in anything he invents with other shareholders. Despite this he started using information covered by this patent in his own business. He attempted to argue the contract was void because it was contrary to public policy.
- The judge ruled that the contract was valid. He cited that those of age and complete understanding have the utmost liberty of contracting when entered into freely and these contracts shall therefore be enforced by the courts.

Question 2

Nash v Inman 1908

Answer 2

11 fancy waistcoats were purchased and supplied to an Oxford undergrad and the father managed to convince the court that the son was already supplied with other fancy waistcoats and therefore the 11 were not a necessity.

Question 3

Toronto Marlboro Hockey Club v Tonelli 1979

Answer 3

the def (17) signed to play ice hockey for the pl’s amateur club for 3 years or 4 (at his discretion). During the course of his time there he received minimal remuneration and had to give 20% of his income to the pls during the first 3 years of his pro career. The pl tried to argue this benefits the sport as a whole but the court said this was irrelevant. The contract must benefit the minor and in this case it was entirely one-sided against the minor - the contract was void.