COMMON
ECONOMIC TORTS
1.0 STATEMENTS AND SPECIAL
RELATIONSHIPS
As Lord Reid put it in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v
Heller & Partners Ltd: Quite careful people often express definite
opinions on social or informal occasions, even when they see that others are
likely to be influenced by them; and they often do that without taking that
care which they would take if asked for their opinion professionally, or in a
business connection. And moreover, while negligent acts will generally have a
limited range of impact, negligent words may be widely broadcast without the
consent or foresight of the speaker.
Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 1 All ER 426
The Court of Appeal relied on Derry v Peek to refuse
a remedy to the plaintiff who had invested funds in a company on the basis of
accounts negligently prepared by the defendant. Without evidence of fraud they
held that economic loss resulting from misstatement was irrecoverable.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd.
The
plaintiffs asked their bankers to inquire into the financial stability of a
company with which they were having business dealings. Their bankers made
inquiries of the company's bankers, who carelessly gave favourable references
about the company. Reliance on these references caused the plaintiffs to lose
£17,000. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for their careless statements. The
action failed because the defendants had expressly disclaimed any
responsibility. The plaintiff to recover for negligent misstatements must
establish that the statement was made within a relationship where the plaintiff
could reasonably rely on the skill and care of the defendant in making the
statement. He must show some 'special relationship' with the defendant which properly
resulted in the defendant undertaking responsibility for the accuracy of the
statements made.
Chaudhry v
Prabhakar [1988] 3 All ER 718
The defendant who considered himself something of an
expert on motor cars was held liable to his friend whom he agreed to assist
with the purchase of the car when his advice proved woefully inadequate and
negligent. The trend up until 1989 appeared to be to allow a liberal
interpretation of what constituted a special relationship.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
The defendants were the auditors who acted for
Fidelity pie. They had prepared annual accounts on the strength of which Caparo
(the plaintiff) bought shares in Fidelity and then mounted a successful
takeover bid. Caparo alleged that the accounts were inaccurate and misleading
showing a pre-tax profit of £ 1.3m when they should have recorded a loss of
£400,000. Had Caparo been aware of the true state of affairs they would never
have bid for Fidelity. The House of Lords found against Caparo on a preliminary
point of law. The auditors owed no duty of care in respect of the accuracy of
the accounts either to members of the public who relied on the accounts to
invest in the company or to any individual existing shareholder who similarly
relied on those accounts to increase his shareholding.' Auditors prepare
accounts, not to promote the interests of potential investors, but to assist
the shareholders collectively to exercise their right to control over the
company. Four conditions must be met for a defendant to be liable for economic
loss resulting from negligent advice or information. (1) The defendant must be
fully aware of the nature of the transaction which the plaintiff had in
contemplation as a result of receipt of the information. (2) He must either
have communicated that information to the plaintiff directly or well know that
it will be communicated to him (or a restricted class of persons of which the
plaintiff is an identifiable member). (3) He must specifically anticipate that
the plaintiff will properly and reasonably rely on that information when
deciding whether or not to engage in the transaction in question. (4) Finally,
the purpose for which the plaintiff does rely on that information must be a
purpose connected with interests which it is reasonable to demand that the
defendants protect.
No duty is owed to all potential investors for such a
duty would in truth result in unlimited liability. If auditors were liable to
any investor who relied on the published accounts to deal with the company
simply because such conduct is foreseeable, they would equally be liable to
anyone else who dealt with the company to his detriment, for example, to banks
lending the company money or tradesmen extending credit terms. Caparo sought to
argue that the vulnerability of Fidelity to takeover should have alerted the
auditors to the likelihood of a company, such as Caparo, mounting a takeover
bid, and that they were not just any potential investor, but existing
shareholders. Their Lordships held that the defendants were under no duty to
safeguard the economic interests of predators, and that the statutory duty
imposed on them by Parliament was to protect the interests, and existing
holdings of, the shareholders in the client company, and not to facilitate
investment decisions whether by existing shareholders or others.
2.0
PRODUCT LIABILITY
The decision of the House of Lords in Donoghue
v Stevenson heralded a new age.
2.1 Products
2.2 Ultimate Customer
Stennett v Hancock and Peters
a bystander was held to be within the rule in
Donoghue v Stevenson. The defendant garage owner negligently reassembled the
flange on one wheel of X's lorry. When, later, X was driving the lorry on the
highway, the flange came off the lorry, mounted the pavement and injured the
plaintiff, a pedestrian. The defendant was held liable for his negligent
repair.
2.3 Sale
Hawkins v Coulsdon and Purley UDC [1954] 1 All ER 97
2.4
Intermediate Examination
2.5
Preparation or Putting Up
2.6
Continuing Duty of Care
3.0 DECEIT
Pasley v Freeman (1789) 3 Term Rep 51.
The defendant falsely misrepresented to the plaintiff
that X was a person to whom the plaintiff might safely sell goods on credit.
The plaintiff suffered loss through relying on this representation and was held
to have an action on the case for deceit.
The tort may be defined as:
A false representation made by the defendant
knowingly, or without belief in its truth or recklessly, careless whether it be
true or false, with the intention that the plaintiff should act in reliance
upon the representation, which causes damage to the plaintiff in consequence of
his reliance upon it.
a. False
Representation
Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377
'there must... be some active misstatement of fact,
or, at all events, such a partial and fragmentary statement of fact, as that
the withholding of that which is not stated makes that which is stated
absolutely false'.
Incledon v Watson (1862) 2 F & F 841
In an advertisement for the sale of his school, the
defendant stated the number of scholars at that time. That statement was not
proved to be inaccurate. During the course of negotiations, the number
decreased. The plaintiff, who bought on the faith of the representation, and
who was not informed of the reduction, was held to have an action in deceit for
damages.
b.
Knowledge of Falsity
Derry v Peek
A company was empowered by private Act to run trams
by animal power, or, if the consent of the Board of Trade was obtained, by
steam power. The directors, believing that the Board of Trade would give this
consent as a matter of course (since the Board of Trade had raised no objection
when the plans were laid before them), issued a prospectus saying that the
company had the power to run trams by steam power. Relying on this prospectus,
the respondent took up shares from the company. The Board of Trade eventually
refused its consent, and later the company was wound up. The House of Lords
held that an action in deceit against the directors failed because no want of
honest belief on the part of any director was established by the respondent.
However negligent a defendant may be, that is not sufficient to make him liable
for the tort of deceit.
c.
Intention to Deceive
Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society v
Borders [1941]
An action in deceit may be based on an advertisement
in a newspaper if the plaintiff shows that he was one of the class of persons
at whom the advertisement was directed.
Pilmore v Hood (1838) 5 Bing NC 97
A, who was negotiating the sale of a public house to
B, made certain false statements to B concerning the takings of the public
house. The transaction fell through. To A's knowledge, B passed on to C these
false statements. A then sold to C without correcting these statements and was
held to be liable to him in deceit.
d.
Reliance of the Plaintiff
Smith v Chadwick (1884) 9 App Cas 187
e. Loss
4.0
PASSING OFF-UNFAIR TRADING
Erven Warnink BV v J Townend &
Sons (Hull) Ltd. [1979] 2 All ER 927.
4.1
Misrepresentation
4.2 In the
Course of Trade
4.3
Representation to Customers or Ultimate Customers
4.4
Calculated to Injure Goodwill
4.5 Proof
of Damage
Draper v Trist [1939] 3 All ER 513
5.0
INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD
That an action will lie for written or oral
falsehoods ... where they are maliciously published, where they are calculated
in the ordinary course of things to produce, and where they do produce, actual
damage...
Joyce v Motor Surveys Ltd [1948] Ch 252
The
plaintiff became tenant of one of defendants' lock-up garages in order to have
premises at which he could be registered as a tyre dealer. The defendants
subsequently wished to evict the plaintiff in order to sell the entire property
with vacant possession. They therefore told the Post Office not to forward any
more mail to him at that address, and told the tyre manufacturers' association
that he was no longer trading there. The defendants' conduct was held to
constitute injurious falsehood.
The essence of the tort is that the defendant's lies
should have caused economic damage to the plaintiff.
Kaye
v Robertson, [1991] FSR 62
The plaintiff actor was photographed without his
consent as he lay in a hospital bed recovering from near fatal injuries. The
newspaper presented a story concerning him as though it had been obtained with
his authority and thereby deprived Mr Kaye of the opportunity to market his own
account.
Joyce v Sengupta [1993] 1 All ER 897
The defendant newspaper published an article
insinuating that the plaintiff had abused her position as lady's maid to the
Princess Royal to steal from her employer personal letters. The plaintiff
contended that the article might well prejudice her future employment
prospects. Her claim in injurious falsehood was allowed to proceed.
White v Mellin [1895] AC 154
W bought, for sale in his shop, bottles of infant
food made by M and affixed on them, before selling to customers, a label that
Dr V's food for infants and invalids (in fact a product of W) was better in
particular respects than any other. An action for injurious falsehood failed,
on the ground (inter alia) that this mere puff was not a disparagement.
6.0
UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH TRADE
6.1
Conspiracy
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] 1 All ER 142
The facts were as follows:
The appellants produced tweed cloth in the Outer
Hebrides. Only the weaving of their cloth took place on the island; they
imported yam from the mainland. Other firms had their cloth spun as well as
woven on the island. The respondents, V and M, were trade union officials of
the union to which most of the spinners employed in the island mills belonged.
Employers of these men informed V and M that the competition of the appellants
prevented them from raising wages. The respondents (who were assumed by some of
their Lordships to be acting in combination with the mill-owners) instructed
dockers at the island's port to refuse to handle yarn imported from the
mainland consigned to the appellants and cloth made by them which they desired
to export. Without breaking their contracts of employment, the dockers obeyed.
The appellants sought to stop this embargo on the ground that it was an
actionable conspiracy. They failed, because the House of Lords held that the
predominant purpose of the combination was the legitimate promotion of the
interests of the combiners.
Lonrho plc v Fayed [1991] 3 All ER 303
In that case, the plaintiffs, who had sought to take
over the House of Fraser (including Harrods), alleged that the defendants had
unlawfully made false and fraudulent representations to the Secretary of State
for Trade and Industry, thus procuring their own successful takeover of the
disputed company. There could be no doubt that the defendants' predominant
intention was to advance their own interests. So the Court of Appeal struck out
the plaintiffs' claim in conspiracy. The Law Lords restored the claim. Lord
Bridge affirmed that (1) in any action for conspiracy, proof of an intent to
injure the plaintiff is required, (2) in 'unlawful means' conspiracy that
intention need not be the defendants' primary design. If unlawful means are
utilised to forward the conspiracy, the defendants cannot excuse the use of
such means by proving that their predominant purpose was to protect or advance
their own interests."
6.2
Inducing Breach of Contract
D C Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin [1952] 2 All ER 361
a. Kinds
of Contract
DC Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin
[1952] 2 All ER 361
b. Breach
of Other Obligations
Lonrho plc v Fayed (No 2) [1991] 4 All ER 648
c. Breach
of Contract
Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins [1969] 1 All ER 522
An injunction was granted against the defendants who,
in the course of industrial action, were attempting to stop a supplier
fulfilling his contract with the plaintiff. The contract expressly exempted
either party from liability for events beyond their control, including labour
disputes, which led to a failure to perform. The Court of Appeal interpreted
the clause as '... an exception from for non-performance rather than an
exception from the obligation to perform'. Thus, the defendant's conduct still
constituted inducing a breach of that latter obligation.
Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 350
The facts were as follows:
The plaintiffs had been the only English makers of
midget valves for hearing aids. Setting up in competition, the defendants
employed on this work some of the staff of the plaintiffs in their spare time.
It was held that an implied term must be read by the plaintiffs into the
engagement of this staff that the latter should not break their fidelity to the
plaintiffs by doing an act which would injure the plaintiffs' business, and, in
view of the fact that the plaintiffs had a monopoly of this type of work and
those members of the staff had a monopoly of the skill, an injunction
restraining the inducement of breach of contract should be granted.
Smithies v National Association of Operative
Plasterers [1909] 1
KB 310
Where the defendant had engaged a servant in
ignorance of an existing contract of service between the servant and the
plaintiff, he was held liable for having continued to employ him after learning
of the facts."
d.
Knowledge of the Contract
British Homophone Ltd v Kunz and Crystallate
Gramophone Record Manufacturing Co Ltd [1935] All ER Rep 627
e.
Inducement and Interference
Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin [1952] 2 All ER 361
TUTORIAL QUESTIONS
1. Burrito Ltd entered the
market of Trinidad and Tobago selling its special brand of genuine Mexican
burritos. During its market survey of Trinidad and Tobago it discovered the
presence of two potential competitors: Burrito Boy and Royal Burrito. Burrito
launched an aggressive advertising campaign claiming the following: their
burrito was better, healthier and much tastier than Burrito Boy’s. In the case
of Royal Burrito, Burrito Ltd claimed that Royal Burrito did not use beef in
its burrito but kangaroo meat imported from Australia. Royal Burrito and
Burrito Boy both claimed that the statements made against them were wrong and
wished to take legal action against Burrito Ltd. Discuss.
2. Madan Gopaul, a recent
retiree from SocaPetro, received the sum of two hundred thousand dollars as a
retirement payment. He visited his local bank, John Crow Bank Ltd., to deposit
the money in a low interest, low risk, special account. While completing the
paper work, the manager mentioned to Madan that a new mutual fund was being
launched by the bank which provided a high interest rate. Madan inquired about
the risk of the investment and was told offhandedly that it was quite low as
the mutual fund only invested in blue chip companies. Madan then indicated his
interest and was told by the manager that he was not responsible for the
investment but would refer him to the relevant person. Madan then went to the
desk of the fund officer who introduced himself and described the account to Madan.
Madan interrupted him and said, “The kind gentleman, Mr. Francis, has already
told me about the investment. I would like to invest $200 000 into the mutual
fund.” Six months later, due to an international terrorist attack the stock
market crashed and the value of Madan’s investment was wiped out.
Madan has
come to you seeking advice as to whether he can bring an action against the
bank to recover the monies invested.
3. The claimant was injured
on 16th November 1990 when he was twelve years old. He was helping his mother
to attach a product known as a "Cosytoes", purchased from one of the
defendant's stores to his younger brother's pushchair. The Cosytoes was a
fleece lined sleeping bag intended to be attached to a pushchair by elasticated
straps being passed around the back of the pushchair from each side enjoined by
a light metal buckle attached to one of the straps. The buckle was intended to
pass through a loop on the other strap and the claimaint was attempting to join
the two when one of the elastic straps slipped from his grasp and the buckle
hit him in the left eye. As a result of the accident, the Claimant suffered a
shallow temporal half detachment of the retina and consequently had no useful
central vision in his left eye. The Parties jointly instructed an engineer to
prepare a liability report. The engineer concluded that in 1990 no manufacturer
of child care products could have been reasonably expected to recognise that
elastic attachment straps could pose a hazard as their potential risks had not
been recognised by experts at that time. Please discuss.
4. Arsenal Football Club
may well have won the league championship six times and the FA Cup seven times
but is facing a serious challenge from the street trader and Arsenal fan,
Matthew Reed, to sell unofficial merchandise from the garden stall at his
Highbury home near to the home ground of Arsenal, something he has been doing
since the 1970s. Merchandising is
fundamental to the business of all clubs and Arsenal has secured a number of
intellectual property rights, including registered trademarks, to enable it to
protect and manage the £5m it earns each year from such activities. The club
knows that there is little point in securing intellectual property rights
unless they are enforced vigorously, even if this means taking action against
its own fans.
In the case in question,
Arsenal Football Club Plc vs Matthew Reed, Arsenal complained that Mr Reed's
merchandise:
The case has massive
implications for all businesses which rely on their merchandising activities as
a source of revenue, whether in the sporting or entertainment field. Mr. Reed has acknowledged his goods incorporated
Arsenal's trade marks. This is logical. Football merchandise only works if it
operates as a badge of allegiance for the particular club and propagates the
tribalism of its fans by allowing them to show devotion to their chosen team. A
plain red scarf could mean that a fan supported any of Manchester United,
Liverpool, Arsenal or Nottingham Forest (among others). However, add a
"cannon motif" and immediately the fan becomes a "Gunner",
that is to say an Arsenal supporter.
In many ways Arsenal is a model retailer. Since appreciating the value
of its brand, it has done everything in its power to realise and protect the
value of its asset. The club has ensured that its own commercial operations
could satisfy demand by opening additional shops and expanding its mail order
business. At the same time it adopted a consistent branding strategy with
extensive and prominent use of its trade marks including the tagline "The
Official Arsenal Collection" on all products, packaging and advertising.
Arsenal has trade mark registrations
for "Arsenal", "Arsenal Gunners", its crest and its cannon
design which cover a very large range of goods. Reed's products bear upon them
words and designs which are either identical or similar to the registered trade
marks. Reed has approached you for advice on pending legal action by
Arsenal. Please advise.
5. Claim for payment of sums due to the claimant Skinner from the defendant
Johnson on Skinner's termination of Johnson Tupperware distributorship
agreement. The sums consisted of payments for Tupperware products supplied to
Johnson together with payments in respect of goodwill. Johnson disputed
liability and claimed that Skinner had induced them to enter into the agreement
through negligent misrepresentations, negligent advice and a failure to
disclose relevant facts. Johnson was a self-employed independent contractor who
distributed goods to a network of dealers who in turn recruited hostesses to
sell products. Johnson claimed that a
training manager Ellery from Skinner had made representations on Skinner’s
behalf that a particular distributorship was profitable and had potential to
reach turnover of £1 million. Johnson trusted in Ellery and relied on his
representations when deciding to take on the distributorship. Johnson claimed
that Skinner knew the distributorship was making losses when the agreement was
signed and that Skinner had breached its duty of care by giving a false
valuation. Please advise Skinner on the merits of the case being brought against
him.
6. Ramlogan & Phillips (defendants) in
this action are partners carrying on business under the style Robert Hill
Builders. The principal business of this enterprise is the refurbishing of
houses purchased by a property dealing company, in which both the defendants
are interested, and of which they are directors. One of the properties upon
which they worked in the summer of 1973 was a dwelling-house known as No. 50
Robert Hill, Siparia, and they engaged the services of a self-employed painter,
Mr. Cravat, to decorate the outside by painting the brickwork from pavement
level to the eaves. The defendants selected and supplied the paint, which they
purchased from a store then known as Spike in Fyzabad. The defendants say that
Mr. Cravat did a competent and workmanlike job on the house and both he and the
defendants say that only “Pity Brown” paint was used and it looked very nice.
But about six months later it started to turn green in places and at the
present day it certainly presents a multicolored appearance not unlike military
camouflage. The defendants wrote to Pity Brown paint company (the plaintiffs)
complaining and seeking recompense. The plaintiffs, as one would expect, were
concerned at the suggestion that their paint, which is well known in the
decorating market, was less than satisfactory and they investigated. The conclusion reached by the plaintiffs and
their experts was that the defendants and their contractor Mr. Cravat, had used
not only “Pity Brown’, but another paint, a very dark green called “Moss
Green”. Not only, they concluded, had
these paints been mixed but also the work had been poorly executed. So they
disclaimed any liability. The defendants placed a notice on the outside wall of
No. 50 Robert Hill, Siparia clearly legible to anybody passing by. It reads: ‘This
house in painted with Pity Brown Paint”.
The plaintiffs have brought this action
against the defendants on the basis of injurious/malicious falsehood and you
have been asked by the defendants to prepare an opinion.
7. Lorraine Explainer was a Supervisor in the
Cards Services Unit – bank cards A.T.M. of the Viva Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
and lived with her husband Elton John in an apartment in a five apartment block
(upstairs) owned by one Jack Sprat and his wife. In 2000 they learnt that the
property was up for sale – asking price $350,000 with preference to
tenants. Lorraine salary was $4700 per
month and her husband’s in the region of $3,000 per month. The Bank had a
policy of providing staff loans at a reduced rate of interest. Lorraine sought
and obtained an interview with Michael Jackson, a senior banking official about
the third quarter of 2000. Lorraine
claimed she was told by Jackson ‘if we were to obtain the property, I would
have to consider eating Crix [for a while”. Further, Jackson said it looked
like a good business proposal, and he would send an officer of the bank to look
at the property. The officer of the
bank examined the property and said it met the standards for a mortgage. In other to meet the mortgage payments,
Lorraine relied on the rents and sought to increase it for the other tenants
and then discovered that it was rent controlled. Lorraine would like to initiate legal proceedings against the
bank as she has since failed to make the mortgage payments and based on the
salary of her husband and herself together with the existing rentals there is
no possibility of so doing. Please advise Lorraine and Elton.
8. Since 1974 all the double-edged razor
blades sold in Trinidad and Tobago have been of a specification designated by
the Smooth Shave Limited as “PPP”’. Pran Kenny has imported and offered for
sale and sold in Trinidad and Tobago double-edged razor blades each of which
bears the Smooth Shave logo device, the packaging for which bears in addition
the trademarks SMOOTH SHAVE LIMITED and SMOOTH SHAVE PPP. The said razor sold
by Kenny, although manufactured by Smooth Shave Ltd. is not marketed by them in
Trinidad and Tobago but are for the Venezuelan market and they are markedly
inferior in specification and quality to the PPP razor blades marketed by
Smooth Shave Ltd. in this country. By such acts, Smooth Shave Ltd. is seeking
to argue that Kenny has passed-off razor blades of inferior quality as being
razor blades the same as or of the same quality as the razor blades sold by
Smooth Shave Ltd. Please advise Kenny.
9.
Mary Maharaj bought a Ford Vehicle in 1997. The vehicle was equipped with
distributor mounted thick film ignition modules (TFI modules). Mary alleges that the TFI modules are
defective and the defect is dangerous because it causes the vehicles to stall
without warning. A TFI module is an electronic device that controls the spark
of electricity that ignites the gas and air mixture in the engine cylinders
(the combustion process). The function of the TFI module is to control the
current through the ignition coil in order to make sparks to initiate the
combustion process. Reliability of the TFI module is related to temperature
which is determined by the mounting location environment and power dissipation. Electronic devices used in automobiles,
including TFI modules, are sensitive to operation under elevated temperatures.
To ensure continued operation of the vehicle's electrical ignition system, the
heat generated by the TFI module itself and the surrounding engine components
must be minimized and managed. Mary
alleges that since at least 1986, Ford recognized that its distributor mounted
TFI modules had reliability problems.
Mary further alleges that the TFI defect can be initially difficult to
diagnose because the TFI module operates normally once it cools down. She claimed that on more than one occasion
her Ford Tempo stalled without warning, including stalls in dangerous
situations such as while travelling down a steep hill. While troubleshooting the
problem, Ms. Reid incurred expenses in trial-and-error repairs. These stalling
and starting problems arose by 2000, i.e. within about 6 years of manufacture
of the vehicle. Please advise Mary.
10. Application by the claimant John Biglow for an interim injunction in
an action for passing off. Biglow and the defendant, Smallow were both
publishers of pornography. Biglow was the registered proprietor of a trademark
consisting of the word "Score", which was the title of a pornographic
magazine that it published as its principal publication. Smallow was a
substantial publisher and had an extensive trading interest. Initially Smallow
had threatened to publish a magazine covering the same subject matter under the
title "Hardscore". Biglow took action and the case was settled. In
its second attempt to publish a magazine with the same general subject matter
as contained in "Score", Smallow published a magazine entitled
"Scorch". Biglow has issued proceedings for passing off. Please
advise Smallow.
11. The
appellant was charged with injurious falsehood for publishing a pamphlet
titled, Did Six Million Really Die? It is this conviction which he appeals to
this Court. The pamphlet is part of the
genre of anti-Semitic literature known euphemistically as "revisionist
history". The pamphlet is based on a paper that appears to have actually
been produced in England by Richard Verral, editor of the neo-nazi British
National Front newspaper in 1977. The appellant has added a preface and
afterword to the original document, entitled Historical Fact No. 1, Did Six
Million Really Die? Truth at Last Exposed.
The basic gist of the piece is that the Holocaust perpetrated by the
German National Socialists against the Jews of Europe during the Second World
War never occurred. According to the appellant, there was no concerted plan to
exterminate European Jewry, along with assorted others of racial extraction,
religious persuasion, national origin or sexual orientation of which the Nazis
did not approve. By pointing to what he alleges to be new evidence, the
appellant submits that some Jews died, as people will in war time, but that the
"Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was never anything more than
a plan to facilitate emigration. He states that the Holocaust is a myth fabricated
by an immensely powerful Jewish-Zionist conspiracy to win lucrative war
reparations from the Germans, to make them feel ashamed and a pariah in the
eyes of other nations, and to win political and economic support for the State
of Israel. The National Council of
Jewish Citizens would like to oppose this appeal. Please
advise the Council on an appropriate response.