Page 16 - August 2014
P. 16

LAW PRINTERS̕                                    That was not all. The inspector of taxes has
                                                 refused to allow the loss as a bad debt, but I
IMPRINT                                          was not informed whether he did so on the
                                                  grounds of the illegality of the transacƟon or
ٛÖÙ®Ä㛗 ¥ÙÊà 㫛 ¦½ƒÝ¦Êó «›Ùƒ½—.               because he had had a "keek" at the accounts
¦½ƒÝ¦Êó, ‘ϐ. Ãّ« Ϗϒ, Ϗϗϓϖ                      of the, no doubt, prosperous commodity
                                                 dealers. The obligaƟon on the printer to
Sir, while legal ficƟon credits us with           put his imprint on certain publicaƟons is
knowing the law, I must, in common               contained in the Newspapers, Printers and
I am sure with many others, admit                Reading Rooms Repeal Act, 1869, and while
occasional considerable surprise                 price lists, catalogues of goods in or for sale,
at its applicaƟon in parƟcular                   and catalogues of estates for sale are exempt,
circumstances, as the following                  there is, I was informed an English case
recent experience of mine will                   which decided that printed company reports
exemplify.                                       and accounts and any separately printed
                                                 "statement by chairman" are not exempt.
          LONDON COMPANY dealing in a            I am, etc. A G MacBain.
           certain commodity had instructed a
            firm of printers to print a brochure  We would like to draw the aƩenƟon of
seƫng out, with illustraƟons, the history        members to the dates therein; that a case
and aƩracƟons of the commodity. The              of 1822 could be related to this maƩer
printers’ account amounted to £900 but the       in 1958 is to say the least surprising. The
commodity dealers delayed so long in making      defence is certainly somewhat unusual. Can
payment that, eventually, the prinƟng firm        any member comment as to whether such a
instructed their lawyers to commence legal       defence could sƟll be used? If it can we need
proceedings. To their astonishment they          to be very much on our guard.
were told (a) that they had not Ɵtle to sue
because, by agreement with the commodity            ã«®Ý ®Äݮكã®Êă½ ó›Ý®ã› 㠐› Ê¥ ®Äã›Ù›Ýã:
dealers, they had refrained from puƫng           ݑƒÄ 㫛 ØÙ ‘Ê—› ÊÙ çÙ½: «ããÖ:ͭͭ¦ÊÊ.¦½ͭø؛ϑùþ
their imprint on the brochure, and (b) that
that fact had been stated in defence by the
commodity dealers. The authority for this
surprising legal opinion, it was explained,
was a decision in an English case "Bensley v.
Bignold" (1822) that an agreement to omit
the imprint is illegal and void and, in addiƟon
to disenƟtling the printer to recover for-the
work done, renders him liable to a penalty.

16
   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21