H & R Block Ltd v Sanott

Last updated

H & R Block Ltd v Sanott
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court High Court of New Zealand
Full case nameH & R Block Ltd v Sanott
Decided13 August 1975
Citation(s)[1976] 1 NZLR 213
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Somers J

H & R Block Ltd v Sanott [1976] 1 NZLR 213 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the legality of restraint of trade clauses under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Sanott was employed as a manager of H & R Block's Christchurch office. After a falling out between them, Sannott resigned and set up in competition to them. H & R Block sought to enforce his restraint of trade clause excluding him for operating within 25 miles of their Christchurch office for the next 5 years.

Held

The court found the restraint of trade clause was unreasonable, and modified it to excluding operating within 5 miles, for 3 years. Somers J said "The provisions of s 8 were intended to overcome the annihilating effect of the common law rules about excessive restraints and to alter those rules as to severance".

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.

The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law. While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonablyrestrain trade. William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, first developed the doctrine in a ruling on Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court. The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States.

Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. Competition law is implemented through public and private enforcement. It is also known as antitrust law, anti-monopoly law, and trade practices law; the act of pushing for antitrust measures or attacking monopolistic companies is commonly known as trust busting.

The reserve clause, in North American professional sports, was part of a player contract which stated that the rights to players were retained by the team upon the contract's expiration. Players under these contracts were not free to enter into another contract with another team. Once signed to a contract, players could, at the team's discretion, be reassigned, traded, sold, or released.

Resale price maintenance (RPM) or, occasionally, retail price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the distributors will sell the manufacturer's product at certain prices, at or above a price floor or at or below a price ceiling. If a reseller refuses to maintain prices, either openly or covertly, the manufacturer may stop doing business with it. Resale price maintenance is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1910), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions. The Court's remedy was to divide Standard Oil into several geographically separate and eventually competing firms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal of New Zealand</span> New Zealands main intermediate appellate court

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand is the principal intermediate appellate court of New Zealand. It is also the final appellate court for a number of matters. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal has existed as a separate court since 1862 but, until 1957, it was composed of judges of the High Court sitting periodically in panels. In 1957 the Court of Appeal was reconstituted as a permanent court separate from the High Court. It is located in Wellington.

Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that for a restraint of trade to be lawful, it must be ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract. A naked restraint on trade is unlawful; it is not a defense that the restraint is reasonable.

In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. In the labor market, these agreements prevent workers from freely moving across employers, and weaken the bargaining leverage of workers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restraint of trade</span> Common law doctrine

Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,

it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.

Rudolph Thomas Randa was an American judge. He was a United States district judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin for the last 24 years of his life. He was Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Wisconsin from 2002 until October 2009. Prior to his appointment to the federal court, he was a Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge and served one year on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

United Kingdom competition law is affected by both British and European elements. The Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 are the most important statutes for cases with a purely national dimension. However, prior to Brexit, if the effect of a business' conduct would reach across borders, the European Commission has competence to deal with the problems, and exclusively EU law would apply. Even so, the pre-Brexit section 60 of the Competition Act 1998 provides that UK rules are to be applied in line with European jurisprudence. Like all competition law, that in the UK has three main tasks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company</span>

The Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company was a private railway company that built, owned and operated the Wellington-Manawatu railway line between Thorndon in Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, and Longburn, near Palmerston North in the Manawatu, between 1881 and 1908, when it was acquired by the New Zealand Government Railways. Its successful operation in private ownership was unusual for early railways in New Zealand.

Unfair terms in English contract law are regulated under three major pieces of legislation, compliance with which is enforced by the Office of Fair Trading. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses. For example, it will not extend to cover contracts which are mentioned in Schedule I, consumer contracts, and international supply contracts. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and bolstered further requirements for consumer contracts. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 concerns certain sales practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Contracts Act 1970</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Illegal Contracts Act [1970] is a New Zealand law that manages how contracts are deemed illegal under either common law or under Statute.

<i>Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne</i>

Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne [1990] 3 NZLR 574 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the enforceability of employment restraint of trade contracts as well as the plea of non est factum.

<i>Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd</i>

Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd [1999] 2 NZLR 559 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under statute, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Vogel Era</span> History of New Zealand between 1873 and 1876

The Vogel Era describes the history of New Zealand between 1873 and 1876, when the country adopted an immigration and public works scheme inaugurated by the colonial treasurer, then premier, Julius Vogel to develop the country and to relieve the slump of the late 1860s; to be financed by borrowing overseas. His "Great Public Works Policy" resulted in a large increase in migrants and provision of many new railways, roads and telegraph lines. The railway system developed from a few lines in three gauges to the start of a national network including the main line from Christchurch to Dunedin, though the narrow "Cape gauge" required later upgrading to increase the restricted height and weight limits.

References

  1. Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. pp. 377–378. ISBN   0-86472-555-8.
  2. Walker, Campbell (2004). Butterworths Student Companion Contract (4th ed.). LexisNexis. pp. 169–170. ISBN   0-408-71770-X.