翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ "O" Is for Outlaw
・ "O"-Jung.Ban.Hap.
・ "Ode-to-Napoleon" hexachord
・ "Oh Yeah!" Live
・ "Our Contemporary" regional art exhibition (Leningrad, 1975)
・ "P" Is for Peril
・ "Pimpernel" Smith
・ "Polish death camp" controversy
・ "Pro knigi" ("About books")
・ "Prosopa" Greek Television Awards
・ "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen
・ "Q" Is for Quarry
・ "R" Is for Ricochet
・ "R" The King (2016 film)
・ "Rags" Ragland
・ ! (album)
・ ! (disambiguation)
・ !!
・ !!!
・ !!! (album)
・ !!Destroy-Oh-Boy!!
・ !Action Pact!
・ !Arriba! La Pachanga
・ !Hero
・ !Hero (album)
・ !Kung language
・ !Oka Tokat
・ !PAUS3
・ !T.O.O.H.!
・ !Women Art Revolution


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd : ウィキペディア英語版
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd

, () AC 847 is an English contract law case, with relevance for UK competition law decided in the House of Lords. It established that an agreement for resale price maintenance was unenforceable as a matter of privity of contract.〔(【引用サイトリンク】) UKHL 1 (26 April 1915) ">url=http://judgmental.org.uk/judgments/UKHL/1915/()_UKHL_1.html )〕
It should not be confused with ''Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd'', a decision of the House of Lords in the preceding year relating to substantially the same resale price maintenance agreements.
Under the modern law of the Competition Act 1998 or EU competition law it would be regulated as an anticompetitive agreement.
==Facts==
Dunlop made tyres. It did not want them sold cheaply but to maintain a standard resale price. It agreed with its dealers (in this case Dew & Co) not to sell them below its recommended retail price. It also bargained for dealers to get the same undertaking from their retailers (in this case Selfridge). If retailers did sell below the list price, they would have to pay £5 a tyre in liquidated damages to Dunlop. Dunlop thus was a third party to a contract between Selfridge and Dew. When Selfridge sold the tyres at below the agreed price, Dunlop sued to enforce the contract by injunction and claimed damages. Selfridge argued it could not enforce the burden of a contract between itself and Dew, which Selfridge had not agreed to.
At trial, the judge of first instance, found in favour of Dunlop. In appeal the damages and injunction were reversed, saying that Selfridge was not a principal or an agent and thus was not bound. The issue put to the House of Lords as to whether Dunlop could get damages from Selfridge without a contractual relationship. The House of Lords, in a unanimous decision from Viscount Haldane L.C., Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker of Waddington, Lord Sumner, and Lord Parmoor, held that it could not.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.