"الملف 14/115 VII الملحق (B 9) أكسيد جزيرة أبو موسى: مواد خلفية حول هذه القضية" [و‎‎٩‎٥] (١٩٠٤/٢٠٠)

1\)
agreements like that with Mr, Wonckhaus, signing in the name of the company, without
consulting the other partners. Such agreements at once become binding on the other
partners, in the case under consideration, however, their approval was also signified.
^ ie a § Teem ent with Mr. Wonckhaus is advantageous to the mining company, so
that the partners have not been injured by Hassan Samaih's action as narmger.
J lie ^ e was therefore no reason for a complaint of the company against Hassan
Samam on tae ground of action contrary to agreement or duty.
iJ ' 1 here was accordingly no ground for action on the part of Sheikh Sakar against
Hassan Samaih lor the protection of the other partners. Moreover, the seat of the
company is at Lingah, and the partners of the company are not subjects of the Sheikh
of Saargelj, so that he has no jurisdiction in matters concerning the relations of the
partners .vith each other. ^ In any case, he could not exercise such jurisdiction himself,
but should have had the dispute settled by the judge.
7- agreement between the, mining company and Mr. Wonckhaus, which is
nothing but the conclusion of an ordinary and permissible business transaction, and
which cannot have any political aims, neither infringes the lease agreement nor is in any
way dangerous to the interests of the State of Shargeh, so that the action taken by
feheikh Sakar against the company cannot be justified on the ground of the general
interests of the administration of the country.
8, Sheikh Sakar's interference is not limited to redressing a wrong alleged to have
been done by one partner to the others, or to preventing the carrying out of an agree
ment alleged to be contrary to the interests of the country, but simply deprives the
whole company of the basis of its existence.
Ihe company, in which the German firm of Robert Wonckhaus and Co. have a
share, is thereby very seriously injured, since the realisation of its object is made
impossible and it is not in a position to carry out current obligations imposed upon it by
contract.
9= Sakar 5 s proceedings, then, are clearly a violation of law—an exercise of arbitrary
power.
The British Memorandum maintains that, as Hassan Samaih had no authority to
conclude a contract for the delivery of oxide with Mr. Wonckhaus which would be binding
on the company, it is open to Mr. Wonckhaus to claim compensation from Hassan Samaih
for non-fulfilment of the contract. There can, however, be no doubt, after what has
been stated in the present Memorandum, that the responsibility for carrying out the
contract for the supply of oxide rests, not with Hassan Samaih personally, but with the
company as a company. The fulfilment of the contract by the company has, however,
up till now been prevented by the arbitrary act of Sheikh Sakar, and the lawless
state of things brought about by that act.
In consequence of the conclusion of this contract by Mr. Wonckhaus, acting in the
interests of the firm of R. Wonckhaus and Co. 5 this latter firm at the present time still
has a substantial interest in the existence and prosperity of the mining company.
When the disputes of the company with Sheikh Sakar placed the firm in a difficult «
position, it was only doing what was necessary in the defence of its legitimate interests I
when it endeavoured bo acquire a share in the company, and So to exercise a direct |
influence on the fortunes of tne latter. There was no reason why the illegal interference |
of the sheikh should prevent the firm from acting as it thought fit.
The attempt is made in the British Memorandum to show that the firm of
Wonckhaus has no locus standi in this dispute, on the ground that it either acquired its
share in ignorance of the position of affairs, in which case it must address its claim to
the vendor, or else acted with knowledge of the position, and has consequently itself
to blame for the injury it has sustained. This line of argument starts from the
erroneous assumption that the lease agreement is no longer legally valid. If that
were the case, there would doubtless be no foundation for the present complaint.
But as the dispute turns upon the., question whether the cancelling of the lease agree
ment was legal or illegal, and as the Imperial Government, for the reasons stated in
this Memorandum, are convinced of the illegality of the cancelling of the agreement
there does not appear to be any reason why the firm of Wonckhaus should be pre
vented from putting forward, on the strength of the share acquired by it in the company,
its claims in respect of expropriation. The firm seems to be the more justified in doing
so from the circumstance that it was evidently the aim of Sheikh Sakar ? s action
throughout to render the rights enjoyed by Mr. Wonckhaus under the agreement for
the supply of oxide illusory for the benefit of his competitors.
Sheikh Sakar compelled by force of arms the cessation of the working of the oxide