'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎75r] (160/1904)

SrpS*S;.. 0r —would «* be in a position to org^iso tho
be S'olmTetio!- on^h If " Vf\ suffic ; e ™- ^ " ,us '
V,. M P«, ton,. «.. less lhan bafAt fee iSf s «pXS ^ ^ ^ ^
o^pplTnt^TfW^hp to . be J . note f „ that the company is not bound for ever by the
agreemen After the expiration of fouryears Wonckhaus has only a prior right to a
Same ^ aS ^ 0ld 0ne ' OT on the terms offered
titers, bo that tne company m any case has a chance of obtaining higher prices in
Str^nLW 41011 ' Whlle 0n th f 0ther hand ^ ^ot in any cilumsLces be
nlTrfJvoZT? the agreement at lower prices than before. It is true that the
SKI I y - momenteiy rises of price but as matters stand it is very
ofhw ''v" < e COI ?? an 7 wdd in any case utilise such momentary rises ; on the
L " " L f'! P os '; ion to derive the full benefit from a rise in the average price,
a rise that can only be estnnatedat intervals of considerable length ; while if, at the end
c- vi.. -our J ears, _lae average price is lower than the price stipulated in the agreement,
the company regains complete freedom.
vi ew 0 f what has been stated above, the conclusion must be that the agreement
V ^ ouckoaus is advantageous to the company, and that the disadvantages arising
V ' ? ct;i t " in ^^'itation of freedom of action are considerably outweighed by the
advantages presented by a certainty of selling for several years at adequate prices.
Massan samau. was actmo- entirely m the interest of the company when he concluded
" - • • nh Mi. \, oj^l.huus; if he h.«l neglected this opportunitv doubts as to
ins business capacity would have been fully justified.
The result of the above examination, then, is that, assuming that Sheikh Sakar
-ad axigut to dec 1 ^ the matter as a judge—which is disputed—his decision could not
possibly be to the eliect that the lease agreement should be cancelled. Taking the most
liberai view of his powers, he could only deal with the
and pi qiiounce judgment on the question whether Hassan Samaih ought to nay com-
pensation to trie plaintiff partner on account of the conclusion of this agreement. It
lias been proved, in the first place, that the partners gave their approval to the agreement;
m he secona place, tnat their approval was not necessary, because Hassan Samaih on the
strength of ms powers as manager, had authority to conclude the agreement indepen
dently, whether such authority was expressly granted him by the Memorandum of
Association or whether it is to be considered as having been admitted in practice by his
having been allowed to exercise it without dispute for many years. This disposes of
tne first ground on which a decision unfavourable to Hassan Samaih might have been
given. 0
^ It has further been shown that the agreement with Mr. Wonckhaus is advantageous
to the company, and that by its conclusion the interests of the individual partners Taave
been secured as completely as circumstances admit. It follows that, from this point of
view also, a decision unfavourable to Hassan Samaih could not be given, especially as
evidence in ..produced showing ^hat the partners approved of the agreement, which
approval wouid preclude them, from claiming any compensation, even if the agreement
were really disadvantageous.
„ Accordingly Isa's complaint is entirely unfounded, and there was no legal ground
lor Sheikh Sakar to give any judicial decision unfavourable to Hassan Samaih. The
decision pronounced must therefore be regarded as entirely contrary to justice.
2. Could Sheikh Sakar cancel the Lease Agr
of the administration
n r ^ Je ' i ' axi . ous letters from Sheikh Sakar to Hassan Samaih, in which he pronounces
e cancellation of the lease agreement and orders the cessation of the work, as well as
certain letters from Abdallatif, show clearly that Sheikh Sakar was induced partly by
political considerations to take steps against the mining company.
Looking at the matter from this point of view, the objections which Sakar has to make
to the agreement with Mr. Wonckhaus are the following : He regards this agreement as a
sub-letting of the oxide mines to third parties who are not British subjects, but subiects
Ox a foreign lower, whereas, he argues, according to the terms of the original agreement
the partners have to work the mines themselves, and may not lease them to others.'
Sa.xiar -.ears that now that a foreigner is one of the parties interested in the mines, the
* See p. 15, and annex 43.
[2574 c—1] -p