( 66 ) TO scrutinise the reasons assigned by the appellant for the cancellation of the contract and concluded):in these circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that these reasons were dug out for the purpose of canceling the contract is not without force. In our opinion they are unstable and do not afford any justification for the action of the 1st defendant in this regard.

( 67 ) FINDING that it was futile to depend upon these reasons to sustain the action of the 1st defendant, his counsel fell back upon the argument that it is not open to a court to canvass the adequacy of the reasons. Support is sought for this in Wood v. Prestwich, (1911) 104 LT 388 and Wright v. Marquis of Zetland, 1908-1 KB 63. This decision dealt with the power of a Head-master to expel a boy for adequate cause to be judged by him. In an action by the parent for damages for breach of contract, judgment was entered for the defendant Head-master, as under the scheme made under the Endowed Schools Act 1869, with regard to an endowed school there was a provision which enabled a Head-master to have a power of expelling a boy for adequate cause to be judged by him.

( 68 ) THE Other case considered the authority of a headmaster to dismiss an Assistant in pursuance of a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Act. Under that scheme, the Headmaster was invested with the sole power of appointing and dismissing all Assistant Masters in the school at pleasure. In an action by an Assistant Master in the school against the governors of the school for his wrongful dismissal by the Headmaster without notice, the right of the headmaster was upheld to do so.

( 69 ) THESE two pronouncements far from lending any countenance to the theory that a court is precluded from going into the_ grounds assigned for it negative it The position is slated by Justice Avory in (1911) 104 LT 388 thus; ". . . . . the only limitation which I believe courts of law have ever put on such words or similar words is that there must be a bona fide exercise of the judgment or discretion of the person in whom such power is vested. "to a like effect is the statement of law contained in the following passage in 1908-1 KB 63. "i further think that there may be cases in which, the governors or the headmaster, as the case may be, having thought fit to assign a cause for the dismissal of a master, although under no obligation to do so, and that cause, when brought before the court, appearing to be an insufficient cause, the court may, as in a case where the dismissal is corrupt, set aside the dismissal. "on this authority and on general principle of law, there can be little doubt that it is open to canvass the grounds urged in justification of a cancellation of a contract in a court of law. It is quite competent for a court to review bona fides, go into the motives underlying such an action and if the court is satisfied that they are inadequate or insufficient, it will certainly set them aside. Whether party is obliged to assign any reasons or not when once ho chooses to do so, they are liable to be scrutinized by a court of law. We would also say that these reasons must be looked for within the contract. It follows that the reasons assigned by the 1st defendant in order to terminate the contract before the period fixed cannot stand any scrutiny some of them being fanciful and that the termination was illegal and invalid.

( 70 ) THIS leads us to the question whether the plaintiff has sustained any damage and if so in what measure. On this aspect of the matter, we do not derive any help from the judgment of the trial court as this matter was not gone into in the view that the cancellation of the contract was valid and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. We have therefore to call for a finding from the court below on this issue on the evidence already on record. Time for submission of the finding within six weeks of the reopening of the lower court after summer recess. Objections if any,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document