It appears that the first reported candidate case to rely on section 4 was Coldicutt v. Keeys. (9) Hillyer J. was clearly of the view that the nomination conferred important rights on the candidate: “The mere addition of the words `or candidate`, without more, in this case (as in Lambly) is not sufficient in the correct interpretation of the agreement to impute to the parties the intention to create with respect to the benefit to a designated buyer – an obligation of the seller, which is enforceable on the basis of a complaint lodged by a naked agent. (14) Nglish: Translation of the candidate for Spanish-speaking RattraysThis case concerned a lease in connection with a binding clause contained in clause 29 of the lease. After the judicial correction of the rental documents, the relevant facts were that, under the terms of the business commitment, the tenant was obliged to purchase certain property from CIS Wholesalers Ltd, a company affiliated with the original lessor, “or another company designated by the lessor”. The new lessor, Rattrays, identified itself as the company with which the tenant had to do business. The question was whether Rattrays, as a lessor or as a designated company, could assert the rights of commercial link against the tenant. Tipping J. had no difficulty in concluding that Rattrays was able to enforce the commercial undertaking as a lessor, since the lessee had promised the lessor`s predecessor to trade with CIS Wholesalers Ltd or a company designated by the lessor, and the benefit of that promise had been transferred to Rattrays as lessor. Considering that he was not bound by the obiter`s comments in Field v. Fitton, he went even further and concluded that the lessor`s candidate was able to enforce the business link under Section 4, which posed a major challenge to the existing law.
GUS Wholesalers Ltd`s rights were enforceable under section 4 (although until the landlord designated another supplier) because, although the company was not a party to the lease, it was designated in the lease as entitled to a service. It could be argued that Rattrays could also assert its rights under Article 4 – not for the general reasons given by the tip, but on a much narrower basis. Tipping noted that a party designated by the landlord would be able to assert its rights under section 4 by being designated by description (i.e., a candidate), regardless of whether the beneficiary could be someone at all on this basis. Any uncertainty was resolved by the appointment itself. In order to take this decision, it was essentially necessary to annul the existing law on candidates` rights. However, section 29 of the lease was a necessary consequence of the fact that a company designated to take over the supply contract was able to do so. This limited the scope to the category of food wholesalers operating in Christchurch at the material time. Therefore, it was never necessary to overturn the existing law, as section 4 clearly includes beneficiaries designated by reference to a category. Alternatively, it could be argued that Rattrays had enforceable rights due to a novation of the contract. It is clear from the provisions of Article 29 that it was free to supply or not to CIS Wholesalers Ltd or any other company at its sole discretion, but that if it supplied goods, it would be contractually liable to the lessee. Thus, the appointment was not the mere appointment of a party to take titles or even benefit from them; Rather, it was a novation of the contractual rights and obligations of the original Contracting Parties through the agreed introduction of a new Contracting Party. As such, the nominee could enforce the supplier`s rights arising from the commercial commitment due to the novation.
Thus, the Court did not have to burden the wording of Article 4 by concluding that a candidate is a person designated by description. Ballance The other case invoked by the Court of Appeal in Laidlaw v. Parsonage was Ballance, in which the court considered whether section 112 of the Property Law Act 1952 (now repealed) was effective in giving a reversion buyer the right to enforce the tenant`s repair contracts under the lease. This section corresponded to section 141 of the Property Act 1925 (United Kingdom) and was ultimately derived from section 10 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 (United Kingdom). Sections 112(1), 113 and 114 of the Property Law Act follow sections 10 to 12 of the British Act 1881 almost word for word. Given that the main Order in Council establishing the lien of succession was still in force in the United Kingdom at the time (i.e. the Grantees of Reversions Act 1540), what was the purpose of enacting sections 10 to 12 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881? Each of the articles provides that the clauses of the lease are attached to the reduction of recovery “regardless of the severance pay”. Article 12 deals with the physical separation of the country itself (i.e., separation in space). It could be said that sections 10 and 11 deal with the timely separation of the recovery remittance, primarily by granting a simultaneous lease. The notion of separation of the reversal by the granting of a competing lease was explained by Salmond J.
in Domb v. Owler(19) The Court`s reasoning for reaching this conclusion is difficult to substantiate. Essentially, the Court concluded that section 4 was applicable on the basis that the definition of “landlord” in the lease included “the landlord`s executors, administrators, assigns and authorized assignees, as the case may be.” .
