SOLDERINE INVENTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3399, 14 December 1911, Page 3

SOLDERINE INVENTION.

PATENT ACENT SUED. DAMAGE.:; AWARDED A'_o. Mr. W- A. Barton, S.M., at tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday delivered judgment in the case oif Arthur Whitcombe Hargreaves (Mr. Burnard) v. Frederick Conrad. Patrick Fiddy ‘ (Mr. Bright), claim £9O. The judgment proceeds: —From the evidonce it appears that the defendant is a. commission agent, and also carries _ on, the business of patent agent in Gisborne. Ip the month of Jnne the plaintiff went to the defendant for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary assistance to. enable him to procure patent rights for an invention known as “Solderine,” when defendant suggested joining him as a. partner in the concern, to which the plaintiff agreed, and the agreement upon which this action is founded was entered into between the parties. The agreement sets eat, “Whereas the said inventor (plaintiff) has invented n. preparation to be known as ‘Solderine,’ and is desirous of having the same patented in New Zealand, the Australian Commonwealth, the. United States of America, Great Britain and Germany, and such other cofuptries as the parties may mutually agree upon; and whereas the said Frederick Conrad Patrick Fiddy has agreed to provide funds necessary lor the patenting and also for the preliminary manufacturing plant now being constructed by Niven and Co., and whereas in consideration of such financial assistance the inventor has agreed to give the said, partner an interest in the proceeds of the sale of such preparation, the said partner will supply moneys necessary for the above-detailed purposes' subject to the following provisions: (a) Should patent rights not tie granted in New Zealand there shall be noi further liability upon, the partner; (b) the said partner shall' not be bound to supply more than the sum of £IOO in all-” It is proved that patent rights have been granted in Now Zealand, and defendant is clearly bound to supply the necessary funds to enable plaintiff to obtain similar rights in. Australia, America, Great Britain, and Germany. The plaintiff has applied to defendant for money to enable lffm to take out patent rights in the other countries named in the agreement, but for some reason he lias refused to render plaintiff any further pecuniary assistance than bo has already done, viz., in obtaining the Now Zealand rights. The defendant has not deemed it necessary to give- evidence, | and I can therefore only assume that bis reason for not tendering the assistance to plaintiff as agreed is that be probably does not think that the venture is'likely to prove so profitable as lie at first anticipated. I am satisfied from the evidence that there has been a. breach of the agreement on the part of the defendant in refusing to supply tho necessary funds for t-lie purpose of registration of the patent in the four countries named in the agreement outride New Zealand. The only question, therefore, is what amount of damage is plain tiff entitled to in consequence of such breach? Counsel for the defendant contends that, assuming that I should find that a breach of the agreement had been made by defendant, plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages, on the ground that no proof of actual damage has been given. In this I am unable to agree- There can be no doubt that the fact of defendant’s refusal to perform his part of the agreement and the publicity given to the matter by these proceedings will greatly militate against the success of the invention and prejudicially a fleet the. plaintiff, besides which it trill now bo most difficult for plaintiff to obtain pecuniary assistance- from any other source.' The plaintiff was prevented, while the matter was in tiny hands of the defendant, from entering into negotiation with any other person, and plaintiff has in consequence suffered considerably through loss of time, for which, he is in my opinion' entitled to some compensation, and that being so, tin* plaintiff should have more than nominal damages. It is. however, impossible to accurately estimate the damage which plaintiff has suffered through the action of defendant in refusing to carry out his agreement, but I think in all the circumstances that the sum of £2O will be reasonable compensation, for plaintiff’s loss. Judgment accordingly, with costs £3 15s.