Skip to content
+44 20 3290 3237/+1 (315) 677-1697
Best Law Writing Services
Comparing the Doctrine of Notice with Overriding Interests
March 1, 2018
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL School of Law Subject: Intellectual Property Law CASE STUDY Peter an art teacher, shared his finding of acetone and sugar solution as paint removal with his friend Doug a salesman at Mucky Jobs Ltd. Doug urges peter to find a suitable solution for graffiti remover. Peter found the solution and got his product patent. Mucky Jobs Ltd started using acetone and sugar as graffiti remover after Doug suggestion (peter actual idea). Doug consulted his company lawyer after knowing peter patent his product, company lawyer drew Dougs attention to the article in Good Housekeeping from May 1956 and list of ingredients used in paint thinner, this convinced Doug that peter patent is not valid. Mucky Jobs has been importing and selling hard surface cleaner since September 2011. Peter after seeing the Mucky jobs Ltd product composition wants to sue them for patent infringement. Degree – LL.M Commercial
LLB Land Law Case Study In 1988 Adam purchased shop premises (title to which was registered) from Bob and opened a news agents. The transfer contained a covenant by Adam that he and his successors in title would not sell, or permit to be sold, alcohol on the premises; this was to protect Bob who owned an off-licence half a mile away. Although the premises were transferred into Adam’s sole name, £5,000 of the purchase price was provided by his wife, Carol. No entry was made on the register in relation to the restrictive covenant or Carol’s interest. By 1999, Adam had acquired other business interests that kept him busy and from then on the shop was run by Carol alone. In September 2011, Adam sold the shop to Derek, who was a business acquaintance. Negotiations were carried out without the knowledge of Carol and the purchase was actually completed the day after Carol left for a fortnight’s stay with her daughter. The restrictive covenant was pointed out to Derek before the sale and in response to a question he assured Adam that he had no intention of selling alcohol and would therefore observe the covenant. This was a lie! Carol has recently returned from her holiday and claims a beneficial interest in the property. Bob is objecting to the sale of alcohol by Derek. Advise Derek. How, if at all, would your answer differ if – (a) Before selling to Derek, Adam had appointed his brother, Edward, as co-trustee; or (b) Adam had needed to sell extremely quickly for financial reasons and consequently the price paid by Derek had been substantially below the market value of the property?