The plaintiffs pointed out that, while the defendant’s counterclaim refers to “an exclusive licence to possession and control of the said gravel pit”, the first grant refers only to “the exclusive right to take gravel”, and the provision of “a right of way to the pit area from which the ... gravel is to be excavated”. This involves the distinction in Back v. Daniels, supra. I make any amendment necessary to overcome this technical difficulty in pleading, as asked by the defendant at trial. Moreover, I make any amendment necessary to plead a variation of the first grant to allow the second grant to be made by the plaintiffs with X in return for the plaintiffs giving the defendant exclusive right to the area of the gravel property and pit used by the defendant in previous years, as that pleading and the evidence bearing on it would be an alternative route to the allowing of the defendant’s counterclaim.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.