Back
LLOYD'S GREATER BRITAIN PUBLISHING COMPANY v. DIAS
NLR13V94
Present : Mr. Justice Grenier.
LLOYD'S GREATER BRITAIN PUBLISHING
COMPANY v. DIAS.
C. R., Colombo, 16,115.
Stamp-Agreement to allot space in a book
and for safe of the book- Ordinance No. S of 1890, Schedule B, Part I.
plaintiff sued the defendant on an agreement contained in the following
document, which was unstamped:-
" Please allot me space in your work not to exceed one-quarter page, for which I
agree to pay you the sum of Rs. 142
This order carries a copy of the above-named book ......
" (Signed) HENRY DIAS."
Held, that the agreement could
be read in evidence, as it is exempt from stamp duty.
THE
plaintiff company sued the defendant on an unstamped agreement, the material
portions of which were as follows: -
" Please allot me space in your work ( Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon
') not to exceed one-quarter of a page, for which I
agree to pay you the sum of Rs. 142 This order carries a copy of the above-named
book.-(Signed) HENRY DIAS. "
On objection taken by the defendant, the learned Commissioner ruled that the
agreement could not be read in evidence, as it was unstamped. After trial the
plaintiffs' action was dismissed.
The. plaintiffs appealed.
Hayley, for appellants.-The agreement P 1 relates to the sale of goods, and
comes under the exemptions in the Schedule to the
Stamp Ordinance. This is an agreement for the
sale of future goods. See Ordinance No. 11 of 1896, sections 5 and 59,
Counsel
cited Lee v. Griffin.1
If there be any doubt about the construction of the Stamp Ordinance, it ought to
be read in the way most beneficial to the C subject, as the Ordinance is one
which, imposes a tax (Kartigesar v. Katherkamer 2).
B. F. de Silva (with him Cooray), for the respondent.-Even in the plaint the
agreement is not treated as an agreement for the sale of goods (see paragraph
3). The real agreement is for the allotment of space; the sale of the book is a
subsidiary contract. The primary agreement was for doing work for the
defendant's benefit. Such an agreement is not within the exception (Fielder v.
Bay3). An agreement partly for the sale of goods and partly for the
sale of a goodwill was held to require a stamp (South v. Finch4). In Clay v.
Yate5 it was held that a contract for printing and publishing did not come
within the exception. Counsel cited Alpe's Law of Stamp Duties, 57.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 10, 1910. GRENIER J.-
The only question argued on this appeal was whether document P 1 requires a
stamp. It was contended for the appellants, who are the plaintiffs, that the
case falls within the exemption clause in the Stamp Ordinance, whereby a
memorandum, letter, or agreement for or reating to the sale of any goods, wares,
or merchandise is exempted from stamp duty. On reading the document I think it
is clear that whether you call it an " agreement " or a " letter " it relates to
the sale of a book called " The Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon," which
the plaintiffs were bringing out, and which the defendant agreed to pay for in
two instalments. In ordering the book the defendant, whose signature is at the
foot of the document, requested the plaintiffs to allot him a space, in their
work not exceeding one-quarter page, for what the defendant's counsel stated was
intended to be a personal advertisement of the defendant. Primarily, perhaps,
the defendant agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 142 for this small space in the book,
but as the order for the allotment of the space carried with it an order for a
copy of the work, it is reasonable to suppose that what was in the contemplation
of the defendant at the time he gave the order was that the plaintiffs were to
sell him the book with an advertisement of himself in it. The defendant in
reality agreed to pay for the book, and placed his order with the plaintiffs for
it, and so document P 1 amounts to nothing more than a letter or agreement
relatin
