ruinous costs in courts of law, either to themselves or to the societies of which they are members. non-per tract. It is moreover important to recollect that no Pleas as to mere sentimental grievance will be accepted in a formance court of law as a plea for the non-performance of a of concontract. A man, having entered into a contract, is bound in honour, as well as in law, to perform his part of such contract, provided such contract be bona fide. A fair and honest contract is equally binding upon both parties thereto. Workmen, whilst insisting upon the fulfilment of all the conditions of a contract by employers, must remember that they too are bound to fulfil all such conditions. This is equity, as well as law. ance as to of contract. Workmen must be particular in entering into Importcontracts, and must not break them when made; fulfilment and organised bodies of workmen must insist upon their members fulfilling all the conditions of the law honestly and fairly on their part, thereby preventing heavy costs, and ruinous disputes. It might be well if more prominence were given to the subject of contract, and breach of contract, in the rules of Trade Societies. Cases, however, will occur which give rise to dispute; in every such case the defence must be bonâ fide. contract to the In any case brought before the court it is the Proof of plaintiff's duty to prove that a contract existed, necessary and the nature of such contract, and also that the to be given defendant broke such contract without reasonable Court. excuse, and that he (the plaintiff) suffered loss or injury thereby. In cases where there is no special contract the terms of employment are governed by the custom of the trade, and in all such cases Plea as to non-existence of ample proof must be given that the custom contended for is generally recognised in the trade. On the other side, the defendant must prove that there was no such contract, or that he (the contract. defendant) had justifiable reasons for breaking it; or, in mitigation of damages, that the plaintiff did not suffer loss or injury sufficient to justify him in bringing the case before the court. In cases where a workman entitled to notice is summarily dismissed without sufficient cause, or suddenly leaves his employment without sufficient excuse, the actual damage suffered either by the employer or the workman must be strictly proved, and in such cases, if the workman obtains immediate employment elsewhere, or the employer obtains immediately the services of another workman, no action will lie, because, although there has been a breach of contract, no damage has arisen from the breach. Contracts, Other pleas may be advanced in mitigation of damages, but in all cases such pleas must be bonâ fide. VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS. (1.) It is a principle of law that a consideration, validity of. i.e., value received, or to be given, is essential to the validity of a contract, not under seal. Agree ments exempt from stamp duty. Unequal contracts. (2.) Contracts must also be valid according to the general law. (3.) Agreements, of the nature of contracts, under this Act are exempt from stamp duty. MUTUALITY OF CONTRACTS. Courts of law have declined to enforce unequal contracts between employers and workmen. In such cases, the equity of the contract has been considered as essential to bind both parties, and by this Act contracts may be rescinded. to be valid From this it would appear that a contract, to Contracts be mutual, must give corresponding rights to both should be parties; and, therefore, in those cases of frequent mutual. dispute, relating to discharge or leaving work without formal notice, the right to do so in the one case, would in equity give a similar right in the other, at least in the absence of usage or express agreement to the contrary effect. enforce the con bar to pro of the It should, however, be recollected that, if a Failure to contract really existed, whether orally or in writing, contract expressed or implied, and if one of the parties to by one of such contract failed to enforce it, such failure on tracting the part of one of the contracting parties would parties no be no bar to proceedings on the other side. For ceedings instance, if the employer discharged a number of on the part his workmen in violation of an existing contract, other. and the workmen so discharged failed to take steps to enforce it, their failure to seek legal remedy would be no set-off to a similar breach of contract on the part of any of the remaining workmen, if the employer brought them before the court. It is most important that this aspect of the case should. be well understood. If A, an employer, broke his contract with B, C, D, and other workmen, E, F, G, and other workmen, would not, on that ground, be entitled to break their contract with A, nor could they plead such breach of contract, if any such existed, in mitigation of damages. If, however, the existence of the contract was disputed, the conduct of the employer could be cited as evidence. To state it in a few words, the failure to enforce of Plea in a contract on the part of one of the parties to it mitigation does not annul the right of proceedings on the part damages. of the other; it would, no doubt, have some weight in regard to the amount of damages awarded by the court, but that would be the utmost. Validity of contracts CAPACITY TO CONTRACT. (1.) Married women, prior to the passing of on the part the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, were of married generally incapable of entering into a binding contract, and it seems that contracts could not be enforced against them under this Act. women. Cases cited. son v. West. Court of Q.B. In the case of Tomkinson v. West, a married Tomkin woman, who was employed at weekly wages, left her employment without giving due notice. Being summoned, the magistrates refused to convict her on the ground that she, as a married woman, was incapable of contracting, and that consequently there was nothing to bind her as between her Decision, and her employer. It was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that the magistrates were right. (Easter Term, 1875.) And in the case of Hodkinson v. Green, occurring soon afterwards, where the justices ordered a married woman, working as a weaver in a mill, to pay compensation, relying upon the Married Women's Property Act, 1870, as giving her power to contract, the Court of Queen's Bench held that the justices were wrong. (Sittings after Easter Term, 1875.) It was also Decision of decided by two Metropolitan magistrates that conMetropolitan magis- tracts cannot be enforced against married women son v. Green. trates. under this Act. These decisions, however, seem to be set aside to some extent by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, whereby it was enacted that a married woman should be capable of entering into and rendering herself liable to the extent of her separate property on any contract, and sue and be sued as if she were a feme sole. (2.) Minors are included under the Act as Minors capable of entering into a contract under it. of competent to con to tract. to, by the (3.) Apprentices under the Act are limited those who are apprenticed to the business a tices, limiApprenworkman as defined by the Act, upon whose tation as binding either no premium is paid, or the premium Act, xii. does not exceed £25, and apprentices bound under the provisions of the Acts relating to the relief of the poor. JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES. tion of disputes § V.-Any dispute between an apprentice to Jurisdicwhom this Act applies and his master, arising out justices in of or incidental to their relation as such, may between be heard and determined by a Court of Summary masters Jurisdiction.* and ap prentices. tices. § VI.—In a proceeding before a Court of Powers of Summary Jurisdiction, in relation to a dispute justices in respect of under this Act between a master and an appren- apprentice, the section provides that the court shall have the same powers as if the dispute were between an employer and a workman, and the master were the employer and the apprentice the workman, and the instrument of apprenticeship a contract * Magistrates have jurisdiction where the summons is taken out after the relation of master and apprentice has ceased. (Regi. v. Proud, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 71; 36 L. J. M. C. 62; decided in 4 Geo. IV. c. 34, § 2.) |