come {othe conclusion that the Applying. these principles Ihave
mreement of June 4 is to be. supported as it sands and without ret-renee "dehors, "Tt means literally what it says. Tt cays that the partes, being "desirous of working together For ithe distribution of the. products the factory. in China. hereby Undertake and agree to do 30 on the following terms. and" conditions: that is the essence' of the contract fud then follow the restrictive stipu ations that the one' party" will not relative clauses were considered by the House of Lords in Rhodes v. Forwood (1876, 1 App. Cas. 256), and Cairns Lo C. said: "it the contra Thad stopped here, what would hav been the result? Both parties would have been tied and bound for seven years, the one not to employ another gent, the other not to act for an~ Jother principal. Then it appears to have occurred to them to consider—but what if the agency produces no fruit to the agents? Or what if the agents are not able to act with the energy which the principal expects?
this state of things to go on for Jseven years in this case? And: then {0 deal with that your Lordships find that the 7th clause was introduced ict might be determined by a six months notice on ether side." There was no such protective clause in the present case and the result was an absolute contract employ no other agent and to act for no other principal for a period fof we years; the risk of dissalisfa tion with the operation of the cor act was left altogether uncovered jand the defendant was apparently at the merey of the plaintiff who was entitled to take delivery of any quantity at any time but not excesding 10,000 1b. per month." A party cannot, however, repudiate an agree ment into which he has entered [simply because it was imprudent on part. (Poster 'v, Wheeler, 1888, 38 Eh. D, 130).
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.