Pleading iii:

Mr. Shaw does not need to pay any damage to Mr. Hobbs, as the exclusivity clause Mr. Hobbs is
relying on is unfair, ambiguous and hasn’t been formatted in a proper manner to get obliged on.

1. (I) There had been no specific damage or relief for the breach of the exclusivity
clause. In EE LTD v Virgin Mobile LTD(2023), English and Wales Kings Bench
Division, Mrs. Justice Joanna Smith DBE in her judgment affirmed on the para [100]
that “ EE contends that On VM’s interpretation of clause 34.5,’ EE would have no
remedy at all’ for VM’s breach of the exclusivity clause, depriving it of all contractual
force and turning it in to a mere statement of intent. So, in this regard Mr. Hobbs is not
entitled to any kind of relief or damages while relying on the exclusivity clause.

(II) From the summary of facts para[1] we submit that the clause was ambiguous and was
made in a jocular manner and had no specific meaning.

1. (I) From the summary of facts we can submit that the relationship between Mr. Shaw
and Mr. Hobbs is a vertical relationship. While, Me. Hobbs oversees the overall
operation and growth initiative of the business Mr. Shaw was just there for mere
implementation which establishes Mr. Hobbs position in this contract as a dominant
party. Under the Competition Act 1998, article 1 provision 2(sub-section1,b) applies
in particular to a agreement, decision or practices which;

“Sub-section 2(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment and
under sub-section 2(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading
parties, there by placing them at a competitive disadvantage”

And from the Vertical Agreement Block Exemption order 2022 confirms under section 8 that the
restriction Mr.Hobbs imposed on my client was a hardcore restriction and had been totally unfair
in regards of Competition Act 1998 as the whole decision of the Clause was completely taken by
Mr.Hobbs in the situation where my client had a loss of bargaining power and had no other
option except accepting the contract.
(II) We should also look upon the recent Court Of Justice of European Union (CJEU)’s decision
between Unilever and The Italian Competition Authority, where CJEU ruled that,

“where exclusivity clauses are applied via distribution network, the distributors use of such
clauses should be imputed to the dominant company if the clauses were unilaterally decided by
the dominant company and simply implemented through its distributors, rather than being
independently adopted by them.”

From the summary of facts it’s clear that the Mr. Hobbs had been deciding everything and Mr.
Shaw was just there to implement it which makes the exclusivity clause unfair and should be
imputed over.

1. From the summary of facts one thing is clear that the wrench business was going
through a time of loss and as my client had no other supplier except Mr. Hobbs, he was
going through a economic disturbance thus had little no income for a long time which
shows that he was having a hard time regarding his survival of the business. From the
decision of Northamber PLC v Genee World Ltd and other-2022 in EWHC Chancery
Division, Judge Rawlings sitting as High Court Judge stated that “ In any event
supplying resellers in the UK in order to survive, even if such supplies did constitute a
breach of exclusivity clause”. As Mr.Shaw had a hard time surviving him getting other
suppliers is completely justifiable.

1. The damage is not linked with the breach;

(I) From the decision in EE LTD v Virgin Mobilf Ltd (above) of para [44] , “ I am fortified in
this view by the decision of Leggatt J (as he then was) in Yam Seng Ptd Ltd v International
Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB) at [177]-[185]. As Leggatt J explained, a claimant is
not entitled to damages for breach of an exclusivity obligation on the expectation measure if it
cannot “prove what profit it would have made or indeed that it would have made a profit at all if
[the party in breach] had fully performed its obligations under the agreement”. A claim for “loss
of revenue” that does not give credit for the costs incurred by the claimant so as to reflect only
the claimant's loss of profit plainly falls foul of the expectation measure and the overriding
compensatory principle.” From the summary of facts it’s clear that Mr.Hobbs had suffered no
loss due to any breach even if it happened as his wrenches had been sold and Mr. Shaw has
helped him to recover in business which has already been submitted by my co-council.

(II) The damage isn’t identifiable. Even if any breach happened to the exclusivity clause there is
no evidence that Mr.Hobbs had suffered any loss. In Lord Bingham’s decision in White Arrow
Express LTD V Lamey’s Distribution LTD [1996] he stated that, “ The Robinson v Harman
formulation assumes that the breach has injured the party’s financial position; if he can not show
that it had, he will recover nominal damage only”

(III) There was no communication regarding the breach of the exclusivity clause. Even if any
breach happened, Mr.Hobbs had a duty to communicate regarding the breach. In the case of
Vitol SA v Beta Renowablr Group SA [2017] Lord Steyn in his judgment conveyed that the
innocent party must communicate his decision to the party in breach and the communication
must clearly and unequivocally convey to the repudiating party.

(IV) Not Only, Mr. Hobbs didn’t communicate with Mr. Shaw regarding the breach but he also
waited for Mr. Shaw to finish the variation of the contract, which shows that Mr.Hobbs accepted
further performance of the contract and has affirmed the contract. [Davenport V R-1877]