... the Arbitration Act, 1889." The sale went through, and the defendants purchased petrol from the plaintiffs for three years. After this period a few problems arose and the defendants tried to repudiate the second agreement, alleging that it had no binding force. ARGUMENT: The defendants agued that the second agreement had no binding force as: 1. No agreement in writing as to price had ever been made 2. The clause requiring the defendants to take their petrol supplies from the plaintiff was an unreasonable and unnecessary restraint of their trade. The plaintiffs agued that: 1. The agreement was valid and binding 2. Therefore by purchasing petrol from other suppliers they had actually broken this contract, even though they proposed to repudiate the contract saying that it had no force 3. After three years the defendant did not follow the contract, as the contract stated that the defendant would purchase petrol only from them as long as the defendant ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now