ブックタイトルkouchirouso_114_20180329

概要

kouchirouso_114_20180329

14 高知論叢　第114号Sargant L. J. は，最後に次のように述べている。『それゆえ，博学な裁判官および我が同僚らの主要な反対側の見解と関係を断つけれども，思うに，当該控訴は，認められるべきである34』。『補足すれば，本件に適用されるべき一般原則に関しては，疑いようがなかったので，どの解決された諸事件に関しても，詳細には言及しなかった。ほかでもない相違は，それら一般原則を当該事件に限って，当該事実に対して適用することに関係していることであった。ことによると言及された数ある事件のなかで，Joseph Evans & Co. v. Heathcote（ 1）のその言及は，当該事件に関してもあまりにも劣らない重要な類似性を有している。ただし，この種の制限に関する一般原則の当該裁判所における比較的最近の言い換えを含んでいるもののみに言及し，そして，どんなそこでの諸事実と，ここでの諸事実とを比較する目的をも含んでいないものとして，その事件に言及するのである35』。order.” My own view is in this respect exactly the same as his. And I do not thinkthat the defendant when signing the form of agreement can have realized its fullimplications better than the learned judge had originally done. This considerationnegatives, or at the least very sensible weakens, the argument sometimes urged infavour of such restrictions, that their adoption between the contracting parties showsthat they were considered reasonable by both parties and so is prima facie evidenceof this reasonableness in fact. The form of agreement was course drafted by theplaintiff s, and it was, in my opinion, so drafted entirely in their own interests andwithout any proper regard to the interests of those who were going to be asked tosign it. I think it was a one-sided and catching agreement, particularly in regard tothat feature of it which was aimed at imposing a perpetual fetter on a customer whohad once dealt with the plaintiff s. Nor do I fi nd in the correspondence between theparties that the defendant’s attention was ever called to this aspect of the contract.I have naturally no sympathy with the defendant in the course which he pursued ofdeliberately breaking his contract with the plaintiff s quite irrespective of whether hestill had stock acquired from them or not. But this is not the crucial question. Whatis crucial is that the terms of the contract devised by the plaintiff s go beyond what isrequired for their reasonable protection, and impose unreasonable obligations on thedefendant, particularly as regards duration”（ [1928] 1 Ch. 264, 279）.34 See, “And accordingly, though with great respect to the contrary opinions of thelearned judge and my colleagues, I think that the appeal should be allowed” （[1928]1 Ch. 264, 279-280）.35 See, “I may add that I have not referred in detail to any decided cases, becausethere has been no question as to the general principles to be applied here. Theonly difference has been as to application to the facts in this particular case of