SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1427, 30 April 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

AGREEMENT NOT TO COMPETE. WAS IT BINDING? Whetlier or not an agreement was in restraint of trade, or unreasonable, or ton vogue or uncertain were questions Hint Mr. Justice Chnmnnn was asked to decide in two cases that came before him in the Supreme Court yesterday morning. The plaintiff in both actions was ijcorge T. P. Williams, importer, carrying on business as the New Ken land Distributing Company. The defendant in chip was Albert Edward Webb, importer, and in tho other case Arthur PcroivoJ Masters, importer. As both cases bore on th» same

question it was agreed that they should be taken together. Mr. P.-Levi appeared for Williams, Air. A. Gray for Webb, and -Mr. C. 1!. Dix for Masters. In the statement of claim it was set out that Williams had purchased certain business from nn Australian company, which traded under the name of the Lnitcd Distributing Companies, Ltd., '.lid winch conducted a speciality business. W ebb and Masters had lx>cn employed by the tinted Distributing Companies, Ltd., and it was alleged that they signed an agreement- that they would not' (after severing their connection with the firm) carry on for a period of twelve months any business which might be in competition with that of the United Distributing Companies, Ltd., whoso New Zealand business had 'been taken over by Williams. Subsequently Webb and _ .Masters carried on business in New Zealand and sold a disinfectant instrument called "pynol." This, .it was Alleged, is almost identical with an instrument sold bv the United Distributing Companies, Ltd.. and later In Williams. Jn bringing these actions Williams sought to have Webb and Masters restrained from selling the instrument in' New Zealand. In defence, Webb and Masters contended that they had been led to sign the agreement through misrepresentation. Further they declared that they had objected to the terms of the agreement, and it was agreed that it should not he binding upon them. Moreover, it was contended that the agreement was in restraint of trade, unreasonable, too vague and uncertain. .

After hearing legal argument his Honour reserved decision.