(i) is the licence reasonably capable of the construction
that it conferred such a right as R.T.V. claims
(paragraph (e) above), so that the Company may have
acted to its detriment in that belief:
(ii) has anything been said or done which might reasonably
lead R.T.V. to believe that it had such a right?
These questions are, of course, relevant only in the context of the "equities" of the matter. It is suggested that
both must be answered in the negative. Indeed, as I urged when
we spoke, the contrary is the case, because it seems clear that
the Governor in Council did not intend to confer such a right as
R.T.V. claims. We cannot know what is or has been in R.T.V.'s
mind, but may the position be that the Company took a normal
commercial risk, hoping that if and when the time came it would
get relay rights? Its plea that it would never have entered the
television field if it had not had relay rights once a rival
broadcasting station came into being ought perhaps to be that it
would not have entered the field if it had not hoped that it
would get relay rights.
(g) If paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) do not state the legal
position correctly, then I urged that the "equities are not
really with R.T.V. because it is cashing in on a right which it
was never intended that it should have.
J.W.D. Hobley
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.