Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Issues Subject_2 Reparation Subject_3 Breach of Contract Subject_4 Wrongful. Facts: The pursuer of an action of damages for breach of contract is not obliged to put in issue that the breach was “wrongful.”
This was an action of damages for breach of contract. The defender had engaged to serve the pursuers for three years as a commercial traveller, during which he obliged himself to devote his whole time and attention to promote the interests of his employers, and not to “engage in any other business for himself or for behoof of any other person.” The pursuers were, on the other hand, to pay him a salary and allow him certain commissions on orders.
In September 1865 the defender left the service of the pursuers, who thereafter brought the present action against him, alleging that he had in breach of his engagement, and during its currency, deserted their service, and also that he had engaged in business in the same line and diverted custom from the pursuers.
The defence was a denial and a statement that the pursuers had themselves broken the agreement by failing to employ him as a traveller, ad requiring him to perform duties different from those tor which he was engaged, and also by not having paid him the stipulated commission.
“It being admitted that on 3d May 1864 the pursuer and defenders entered into the argument No. 7 of process—
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.