I, ANDREW MALCOLM, of 103 Southover Street, Brighton BN2 2UD, MAKE OATH AND SAY as follows:-
1. I am the plaintiff in this action and I make this Affidavit in further support of my claim for damages under the order of the court of Appeal on 19th December 1990. Hereunder I shall use the following references, followed by their paragraph number:
PoC My Points of Claim (7th Affidavit dated 29th March 1991)
PoD Defendants' Points of Defence dated 15th May 1991
AoF Defendants' Admissions of Facts dated 31st May 1991
2. There is now produced and shown to me tied together in a bundle containing 55 sheets and marked "Exhibit A.M.10" a bundle of true copies of relevant documents the detaiIs of which are set forth in the index to the exhibit and which are numbered at the foot of each page referenced hereunder [x]. References (A-G...) refer to the bundles used in the trial and the appeal, all of which material I am assuming will be available at the assessment hearing.
New Items of Evidence
3. Since serving my Points of Claim of 24th March 1991, various new items of evidence have become available:
(a) The frontispiece of an early hardback edition of The Outsider which was first published on 28th May 1956 showing that the book went into its 9th impression within 3 months of publication, and the frontispiece of a Pan paperback edition which shows that it first went into paperback in 1963 [1, 2].
(b) An essay exibited hereto [3] written in 1965 by Colin Wilson for World Authors 1950 - 1970 concerning his book The Outsider, which was first published in 1956. In this he states (paragraph 3) that "the publicity machine ground at full tilt for two years or so, while the book went into 16 languages."
(c) An introduction exhibited hereto [4-7] entitled The
Outsider 20 Years On written in 1976 by Colin Wilson for a new
paperback edition. In this he states (paragraph 18) "The
Outsider made me about £20,000 in its first year". This figure has been admitted by the Defendants in AoF Schedule 2 (p.8).
(d) A correspondence exhibited hereto as [8-11] between
myself and Professor Douglas Hofstadter and myself and his
publisher Basic Books. In his letter to me of 12th April 1991
[9] Professor Hofstadter states that in its first 6 years his
book Godel, Escher, Bach sold about 70,000 hardback copies in
USA and 500,000 (+/-200,000) paperback copies with worldwide
sales totalling by now 800,000-1,000,000. These figures
have been admitted by the Defendants in AoF Schedule 2 (p.8). The letter of 5th June 1991 from Basic Books [11] has arrived
subsequently and completes some gaps in the figures.
(e) A recent correspondence exhibited hereto [12-28] between
myself and Mr. Jonathan Glover, author of one of the
comparable books cited by the Defendants in PoD 11, including his first 5 years' royalty statements.
(f) Since the Hearing of the Defendants' Summons for
Directions on 19th April 1991, the Defendants have sought from
me (24th May) and Master Dyson, deputising, has ordered (31st
May) discovery of my listed recordings of telephone
conversations of 1985 and 1986 with Henry Hardy and Nicola
Bion for which I had claimed privilege. My claim to privilege in
these recordings, incidentally, had never, in 4+ years of
litigation, previously formally been challenged by the
Defendants. Copies of these recordings and transcripts
thereof have now been served on the Defendants and since they
have objected to my piecemeal extractions, I have inserted
them complete and chronologically in the (Red) evidence file B
with the following numbering:
4. Amongst this newly-available material are numerous remarks made by Henry Hardy and Nicola Bion which are relevant to certain matters still at issue in the Defendants' PoD and AoF, so in case it is of assistance, I shall here quote and reference the most important of them (paginated as in File B).
65b l.53 Henry Hardy = HH: "Let me plunge myself into the shit along with you." 65d l.131HH: "Charkin hasn't attempted to read it, or inquired into its contents..." 65f l.230 HH: "Charkin's reaction is ludicrously out of proportion. It has become a power-struggle thing between him and me." 65i l.392 HH: "The chances of reversing the situation here are getting slimmer and my own job is now on the line." 65k l.451 HH: "It has got to be a matter of personal pride. He would lose face by now accepting it and he's not somebody who will lose face."
69b l.71 HH explains disciplinary procedure: "To use such a procedure in a case like this is quite inappropriate... an informal chat was the wav to handle it." 69b l.91 AM: "Has Charkin been trying to get rid of you for some time and this could be an excuse?" HH: "There's an element of that in it possibly. That
has been put to him by more than one of my advocates." 69c l.110 HH: "There's an element of personality in here which is nothing to do with your book... l.117 ...You get the dirty end of the stick."
69d Hardy dictates a letter for me to write concerning his Disciplinary Warning.
69i l.367 HH: "Given the history of the book, nobody's going to take it on at OUP now... It isn't going to get a fair hearing here now that it has been treated in this way."
69e l.186 HH: Disciplinary proceedings "Totally ludicrous". 69f l.242 "Charkin is now obviously dead set against letting it through... even more so if I win the appeal... He wouldn't then want to give me the satisfaction of the book going through." 69h l.326 HH: Hardy's move to Academic Sociology and Politics books "imposed upon me by Richard Charkin, a move I didn't want to make..." l.355: "A layer of insulation now between me and Charkin." 113b l.29 HH (2 months later): "Richard Charkin hasn't tipped any more buckets of excrement over me since we last spoke... Over somebody else I expect..."
(b) Mr. Hardy's views on the book's merits and sales prospects
65c l.118 HH: "Richard Charkin is dead wrong about this..."
65i l.363 HH: "I remember particularly your attack on the metaphysical implications of modern particle physics... that struck a very strong chord in me at the time... Yours was the first account I had read which came straight out and said this doesn't make sense." 69a l.38 HH: "...un-hidebound, un-strait-jacketed type of book..." 69f l.230 HH: "...an interesting book to publish, worth having a shot at..." 65l l.493 HH: "I feel personally committed to it... particularly after what's been happening."
68a l.9 HH: "...the detailed editorial work... which in your case is not as heavy as in some because you write well... In your case it is more a matter of odd bits of tidying-up." (rf. also PoD 28(1) re. time needed for preparing for publication).
69l l.526 HH: "We are prepared to accept that for you the play is an indispensable part of the book." 94d l.117 HH: "There is a chance, however low or high you set it, that if it was well marketed it might just catch on." 94e l.154 HH (discussing Strawson's report): "Certainly there were things in it that were new to me." 94e l.170 HH: "Even if it's only an effective introduction to philosophy it will be worth doing." 113c l.95 HH (3 months later): "My enthusiasm is still there. That wouldn't change, just by the passage of time."
See also Hardy's letter of 8th November 1985 (B116).
(c) The Plaintiff's belief in the book
69i l.419-449 Andrew Malcolm = AM: "I've been struggling with this for years... every time I've had doubts, I've come back to that play, the atomic pun, and that has restored my faith... I know that that is good... I feel that I may have come up with the greatest piece of philosophical imagery since Plato's cave simile... I just can't get away from it."
(d) The Value of the OUP imprimatur (re. PoC 29)
68a l.17 &ff HH: "One of the greatest appeals of this way of doing it is the OUP imprint... Simply in terms of getting review coverage you do better with an established firm... The next thing is getting it into the shops... If the publisher's rep works for OUP then the shop is going to take a copy or two and try it." 68e l.219 HH: "It could produce a perfectly good book, it's a question of whether it would get to people."
(e) Pain and suffering (re. PoC 31)
65d l.150 HH: "I know how much you care about the book..." 94i l.317 HH: "I'm sure it would be good for you if you got it finished and out and did something different."
116g l.28 Nicola Bion = NB: "It has been a bit of a business hasn't it." 120e l.32 NB: "I know this is a horrible anxious time."
Matters Still at Issue
5. In what follows, I will consider points in what I take to be
their logical order, rather than following the numbering of any
previous pleading document.
Hardback/Paperback
6. I find the Defendants' omission of any reply to the serious
allegations made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of my Points of Claim striking and remarkable.
7. In AoF 18, the Defendants deny that in our telephone conversation of 16th October 1990 I read out to Mr. Sulkin the
contents of the lists in the "Adrasteia" package. I therefore exhibit herewith as pages [29-50] the transcript of my
recording of that conversation, a copy tape of which I have
served on the Defendants,
8. As will be seen, I carefully read out the lists from lines 71
to 232, with the list (G6) which includes Making Names first being
mentioned at line 233. Note that Mr. Sulkin has no problem with
the authenticity of (G6) or with the fact that it includes my
book: his only difficulty is in remembering the title the list includes
about T. S. Eliot. Mr. Sullkin's remarks on the existence of such
lists generally come at lines 742-805. He also makes some
interesting remarks about the OUP procedures at lines 324-435 and
on Mr. Charkin's "blow-up" over Making Names at lines 544-653.
9. With reference to AoF 15.1, I would point out that the Defendants have here re-quoted a mistake made by Mr. Hardy on
26th April 1985, namely that I had suggested that the book should be published in paperback straightaway. As I corrected him at
the time (not quoted in the AoF), I had never suggested this. I have always preferred that the book should come out 'as normal', in hardback first.
10. In my PoC 14-21 I have argued that Mr. Hardy had planned to publish Making Names as a paperback as well as a hardback and
that this was approved by the Delegates on 23rd July 1985. I cited this as evidence of the Defendants' unusual confidence in
the book's sales prospects.
11. The Defendants have denied that Mr. Hardy planned the book's paperback publication and that he had the authority to do so (AoF 15.4) and that the Delegates approved such publication (PoD 21.1) and that this constitutes evidence of their confidence (Aof 14).
12. The Plaintiff admits that it is therefore conceivable that
the Defendants would have published Making Names only in hard-
back, or only in hardback for the first few years. Publishers
often delay publication of a paperback edition in order to reap
the maximum profits from a strongly-selling hardback. This
happened with The Outsider [2] which did not go into paperback
(Pan) until 1963 (after 7 years) and it is currently happening
with A Brief History of Time, which, after 3 years' publication,
is still available in hardback only, priced £14.95 (rf. PoC 9).
13. In the hardback/paperback models below, I have assumed that the paperback would be launched 1 year after the hardback, which is the most usual practice. The subsequent suggested 1:4 hardback:paperback sales ratio is supported by the Hofstadter figures [9], Parfit (see paragraph 52 below), Wilson and Ayer (PoC 22, 23).
14. The Plaintiff notes that in their PoD (paragraph 22, the Defendants give widely different figures (£1.052 and £0.31275)
for the hardback and paperback royalties per copy, yet in
(paragraph 11 where they cite various books as examples, they do not give the hardback/paperback figures. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff accepted the comparisons and the figures in paragraph 11, which he does not, they would provide no useful basis for any calculation.
The Price of the Paperback
15. In our telephone conversation of 19th July 1985 (B68d l.181), Mr. Hardy says the probable price-range of the paperback would be £5,95, £7.95 or £8.95. In my PoC 26 I assume the higher price of £8.95, while in their PoD 21(4) the Defendants assume the lower price of £6.95. I would therefore suggest the compromise figure for the paperback, had there been one, of £7.95. £7.95, incidentally, is the price of the Defendants' paperback edition of Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons (rf. PoD 11) which is about 100 pages longer than Making Names but was published 2 years earlier.
Royalties Generally
16. The Plaintiff avers, contrary to PoD 22 & 23, that royalties on a book's UK sales, in hardback or paperback, are virtually
always (and certainly in 1985 were) calculated on the book's
published retail price, not its publisher's 'net receipts' nor its
'discounted price', nor its 'net line value'. Royalties are reduced on overseas sales because books do not alwavs achieve the
(controlled) UK published price in overseas markets (the
publishers' 'net receipts' are lower). Accordingly, royalties on
export sales are usually agreed as lower percentages of the
published price or higher percentages of the net receipts.
17. In order to assist the Court, the Plaintiff exhibits hereto
a short article by Tim Hely-Hutchinson from The Bookseller Magazine entitled The
Mathematics of Book Publishing [51-53] and a relevant page from The Writers' and Artists' Yearbook [54]. In addition, there is the evidence of the actual OUP contract (at B145.7 & ff.) and the affidavits of expert evidence adduced at the Appeal (F92.9, F94.5). The Plaintiff also intends to adduce further expert evidence on royalties. [Note: Oxford fiercely contested the introduction of Hely-Hutchinson's perfectly uncontroversial, straightforward article, insisting upon his attendance at court to defend it. He, naturally enough, could not spare the time, and the article, which might have prevented some of Master Barrratt's eventual mistakes, was ruled inadmissible.]
18. The contract into which the Defendants by their editor Mr.
Hardy entered on 20th May 1985, as upheld by the Court of Appeal,
was on terms that I receive "a fair royalty". This point is
examined in detail in the Judgments of LJJ. Nourse (p.6) and
Leggatt (p.4). The actual exchange went as follows (B44 l.326):
I took and I take this deal to mean that I should get an average-to-above-average royalty as a quid pro quo for having a zero advance.
The Hardback Royalties
19. In PoD 22 the Defendants admit that, as set out on the PPF
(B54) an average royalty of £1.052 per copy, calculated as 11.5%
of the 'net line value' and equivalent to 7% of the published
price of £15, would have been payable on the hardback sales.
Since compiling his PoC the Plaintiff has taken detailed advice
from independent experts and has made other researches, all of
which confirm that this is unusually low and well below the
trade-accedited average baseline figure of 10% of the published
price [52.1, 54.1], (B145.7, F92.9, F94.5).
20. The Plaintiff further avers that it is the (Defendants')
normal practice to agree 'stepped' royalty rates such as: 10% on
the first 5,000 copies, 12.5% on the next 3.000 copies and 15%
thereafter, with similarly 'stepped' rates about 2.5% lower
applying to export sales [52.1], (B145.7a).
21. Using these figures, one may tabulate the royalty per hardback copy as follows:
18th July 1985 at pages 65A - 65M (13 pages)
19th July 1985 at pages 68A - 68F (6 pages)
22nd July 1985 at pages 69A - 690 (15 pages)
23rd July 1985 at pages 70A - 70H (8 pages)
26th July 1985 at pages 94A - 941 (9 pages)
14th October 1985 at pages 113A - 113F (6 pages)
20th February 1986 at pages 116A - 116J (10 pages)
27th February 1986 at pages 119A - 119B (2 pages)
4th & 18th April 1986 at pages 120A - 120E (5 pages)
(a) Charkin/Hardy Power Struggle: The Book's 'Fair Hearing'
HH: Because it's such a risky venture I'm not going to be
terribly generous financially, ermm... I mean what I
think we should agree is that you have a fair royalty so
that if the book is a success you will do well out of it.
AM: Yes.
HH: ...but I don't want to pay you in advance money that's
been very riskily invested.
AM: Sure, sure, I wouldn't expect that, yup.
HH: Okay?
AM: Great! That's very good.
| Copies sold: | First 5,000 | Next 3,000 | Above 8,000 |
| UK | @10% = £1.50 | @12.5% = £1.88 | @15% = £2.25 |
| Export | @7.5% = £1.13 | @10% = £1.50 | @12.5% = £1.88 |
The Paperback Royalties
22. The Plaintiff avers that the usual such royalty is 7.5% of the UK published price and intends to adduce expert evidence to this effect [52.l, 54.1], (B146.7c, F92.9, F94.5).
| Copies sold: | First 50,000 | Above 50,000 | |
| UK | (£7.95 x) | 7.5% = £0.60 | 10% = £0.80 |
| Export | (£7.95 x) | 5% = £0.40 | 6% = £0.48 |
The Year of Publication
25. The year of publication specified on the Delegates' Note was 1986. In PoD 28(1) the Defendants aver that they would have required 1 year to make the necessary preparations and that Making Names would therefore not have been published until May 1987.
26. The Plaintiff avers that
(a) The delays that did occur were caused by the Defendants
(b) In any event, 1 year is a major overestimate of the time
needed to produce a finished book.
The Plaintiff draws attention to the use in the Defendants' contract (B140.5) of the wording "as soon as reasonably may be after the complete typescript Shall have been delivered..." and to Mr. Hardy's words at (B42 l.261, B68a, paragraph 4b above and Ms. Bion's words at B120 l.37).
27. The Plaintiff envisaged and stated that the revision would
take 6 months (B15, B18). The first delay was caused by the
Defendants' first breach of contract in July 1985. The Plaintiff
then spent just over 6 months revising and returned the 2nd draft
on time to the Defendants in February 1986. On 27th February 1986
Ms. Bion said that the second refereeing "shouldn't take more than 3
weeks" (B119a l.25), but did not in fact reply to me until 9th May
1986, with the Defendants' second breach of contract (B122).
28. The Plaintiff avers that 6 months from receipt of the
typescript is reasonable, indeed ample, time for the publisher to
produce the finished book, especially since there had already
been 9 months of negotiation and 9 further months post-contract
during which numerous other preliminary arrangements were made.
The Plaintiff avers that Making Names should therefore have been
published by the Defendants on or about 1st September 1986.
Dates of Royalty Payments
29. The Defendants have accepted in PoD 5 that damages should be
assessed on probable sales over a 5-year period and have admitted
in PoD 30 that 75% of total sales realistically would occur in the first 2 years.
30. According to the timetable set out in PoD 28, the royalty payments would have been made as follows:
See, however, paragraph 59 below.
Interest, Tax
31. I take PoD 32 to mean that any damages recovered are taxable in my hands and that, save for the aspect mentioned in PoD 33, no calculation of tax deductions is applicable to the assessment.
32. Re. PoD 26, the Plaintiff accepts that he is not entitled in
law to recover compound interest.
33. Re. PoD 33, the Plaintiff accepts that interest would have been earned on royalties only after tax had been paid thereon and accordingly will deduct 25% (standard rate) tax appropriately
before computing interest in the model calculations hereunder.
34. Re. PoD 25, the Plaintiff avers that the Judgment Act rate of 15% is an appropriate rate of interest.
An Introduction for Students
35. In PoD 14-19 the Defendants systematically confuse 'recommended reading' with 'a set text'. Mr. Ryan wrote that Making Names "might do well as a sort of introduction to philosophy for people doing A level philosophy and Open
University Courses". By this I take him to mean it might do well
as a book recommended to such students to read rather than one on
their knowledge and analysis of which they would be examined.
36. The Plaintiff makes no claim that the book would at once
become established as a set text, which honour is normally
accorded only to books that are hundreds of years old by authors
who are long since dead. The Plaintiff does dare to hope that
his book may one day be accorded that status, but realises that
it would probably not be for some considerable time.
37. In its likely role of 'recommended reading', it is entirely
plausible to suppose that if it became accepted as a useful
introduction to philosophy, as suggested by Mr. Ryan, its
readership would extend to all new students of the subject,
including UCCA applicants (rather than just acceptances) and to
'A' Level enrolers (rather than just exam-takers) and all the
listed philosophy-related courses of the Open University.
Philosophy, by its very nature, is a subject for which students
will only apply or enrol because they are interested in it.
38. The Plaintiff accepts the arithmetical correction made by
the Defendants in PoD 17(4).
Comparisons with Other Books
39. In PoD 6 the Defendants admit that comparison with sales figures for comparable published works is an appropriate method of estimating the likely sales of Making Names. In PoD 11 they cite four examples, hereinafter referred to as 'Parfit', 'Hare', 'Raphael' and 'Glover'. In my PoC 11, quoting Mr. Ryan, I cite 'Wilson' and 'Hofstadter', while in PoC 9 and 23 I also cite 'Hawking' and 'Ayer'. What are the various similarities and differences between these books and 'Malcolm'?
40. Parfit, Hare, Raphael and Glover are all books of moral
philosophy, which Malcolm, primarily, is not.
41. Parfit, Hare and Raphael are all specialist texts of moral
philosophy which were published under the aegis of the Defendants' philosophy Department/Editor, while Malcolm was thought by the Defendants to be more suitable as a General Book.
42. All of the Defendants' four examples are similar to many other
works in their fields. Raphael is a short, uncontroversial introduction to ethics, of which there are many. None of the four is polemical, in the sense that none of them sets forth a particular programme or theory or adopts an original stance. In this regard, a closer parallel with Malcolm would have been with R. M. Hare's first Prescriptivist manifesto The Languaqe of Morals.
43. Of the Defendants' four examples, only Glover, like Malcolm, is
aimed at a general readership. It is the most easily digestible and the most stimulating. It is also the closest in length. For all these reasons I suggest that of the four books suggested by the Defendants, Glover provides the best parallel with Malcolm.
44. There is a notable omission from the Defendants' list of
their comparable books, namely Thomas Nagel's What Does It All
Mean? (hereinafter 'Nagel'), which is described in the OUP
catalogue as "A Very short introduction to Philosophy. This book
introduces the reader to nine of the central problems of
philosophy, and shows that most people think about such problems
without realizing it." This could almost be a precis of my 1-page introduction to Making Names (B1). Nagel was published in
1988 as a hardback @ £8.95 and in 1989 as a paperback @ £3.95.
It has been adopted by the Open University as recommended
introductory reading. Prima facie therefore, this book is far
more obviously and closely comparable with mine than any of the
others cited by the Defendants.
45. In being an original, one-off, unusual polemic with no
obvious predecessors, Malcolm is, however, more comparable than any of the above titles with Ayer, Wilson, and Hofstadter, although the latter is very long, discursive and obscure.
46. In terms of subject-matter I would claim Malcolm comes
closest to a combination of Ayer and Hawking.
47. In a set of four calculations hereunder, I propose therefore
to take as four different alternative 'models' of Making Names'
probable sales, the following four books: (a) Wilson, (b) Hofstadter, (c) Nagel and (d) Glover.
The Books' Sales Figures
48. Colin Wilson's 1956 earnings from The Outsider have been
admitted by the Defendants, so the calculation here is a simple
mathematical one.
49. It is notoriously difficult to obtain reliable sales figures
from publishers, who regard them as confidential commercial information. When I, unidentified, telephoned the Defendants, they even refused to divulge their annual sales figures for David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature!
50. Professor Hofstadter's figures [9] are now admitted by the
Defendants and I shall assume that the Basic figures [11] will also be admitted. For US hardbacks, Hofstadter says "about 70,000", while
Basic says "over 60,000". I shall assume 65,000. The one 'gap'
left in the Basic letter, the UK paperback sales, is filled by
the figure of 97,000 which I obtained by telephone (recorded)
from a Penguin sales person on 5th September 1989 (rf. my Further
and Better Particulars, A11.6). Adding all the figures, the
book's total worldwide sales are 946,000.
51. On 12th June 1991 I telephoned Professor Thomas Nagel in
Paris to ask how well his book had sold. He told me "roughly
speaking, 20,000 copies in its first year and 15,000 annually
since." I shall therefore be seeking from the Defendants
specific discovery of their accounts and royalty statements
relating to this book. For the moment I shall assume that Professor Nagel's figures are correct and that they will be confirmed by the Defendants' specific discovery.
52. I do not accept the figures in the Defendants' PoD 11 as being true. As it happens, some years ago my attention was drawn to Parfit by an article in The Oxford Times of 28/9/84 in which Mr. Charkin tipped Parfit as "a potential classic". On 15th
August 1989 I telephoned Mr. Parfit and asked him how well his book had by then sold. He said "Over 20,000, with 4,000+ in hardback and 16,000+ in paperback."
53. On 17th May 1991 I telephoned Penguin Books about Glover and was told by a girl in the publicity department that it was first published in 1977 and sold over 73,000 copies in its first 3 years, settling down to an annual sale of about 5,000. On 22nd May I telephoned Jonathan Glover and he told me he thought the book had sold "over 70,000 copies altogether", but he was not sure whether it had done so in the first 3 years. He said he had kept all his royalty statements and would send them to me on request. Our correspondence is exhibited hereto [26-47]. The correct figures are considerably in excess of the Defendants' alleged "4,500-5,000 per year" (PoD 11).
54. Recordings of the telephone conversations mentioned in
paragraphs 50-53 above can be produced if necessary.
55-58. Mathematical tables (omitted)
59. I believe that the Defendants' PoD 28(2) is untrue. I believe that in fact the Defendants' practice is to make up their authors' royalty statements 6-monthly rather than annually, as they aver. The true practice is also suggested by Jonathan Glover's 6-monthly statements. For the interest calculation, I shall assume 6-monthly payments, and income spread evenly throughout each year.
60. From the Glover royalty statements [17, 18, 23, 25] it will be seen that between July 1978 and January 1979 (year 2) his book's price went up from £1.25 to £1.50 (20%+) and between July 1980 and January 1981 (year 4) went up again to £2.25 (80%+).
61. In the absence of sales figures, the calculation in the Wilson model is a simple money-translation, taking Wilson's £20,000 p.a. for the first two years and 4,444 p.a. for the next three years (rf. PoC 27, PoD 29) and using the Kemp & Kemp inflation table (1991) [55] to update these earnings.
62. In the other models, I take their books' known patterns of sales figures and assume:
Year 1 lst September 1986 - 31st March 1987 (7 months) paid 31st July 1987
Year 2 31st March 1987 - 31st March 1988 (12 months) paid 31st July 1988
Year 3 31st March 1988 - 31st March 1989 (12 months) paid 31st July 1989
Year 4 31st March 1989 - 31st March 1990 (12 months) paid 31st July 1990
Year 5 31st March 1990 - 31st March 1991 (12 months) paid 31st July 1991 1. 1 year hardback only then hb/pb publication of Making Names.
2. Royalties and prices as set out in paragraphs 20-24 above.
3. A UK:export ratio of 2:3 and price rises as exemplified by Glover in paragraph 60 above.
4. A hardback:paperback sales ratio of 1:4 as stated in paragraph 13 above.
5. First publication of Making Names in September 1986 as stated in paragraph 26 above.
6. 6-monthly royalty payments as stated in paragraph 59 above.
| Hofstadter | £1,082,958 |
| Wilson (money-update): | £822,035 |
| Nagel | £108,357 |
| Glover | £47,881 |
63. Finally it should be noted that the above calculations are concerned only with damages recoverable under heading 1 of the Plaintiff's 4 headings (PoC 3).
Sworn in Brighton by ANDREW MALCOLM, 14th June 1991
Go to Oxford's first witness (re. damages) Ivon Asquith (3).
Click for the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index or the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index
Go/return to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1), Asquith (2), Henry Hardy, William Shaw (solicitor) (1), Sir Roger Elliott (1), Margaret Goodall, to the Witness Statements: Elliott, Hardy, Richard Charkin, Nicola Bion, Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott, Goodall, Bion, Asquith, Charkin, Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm, 13/3/1990, to the Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Chancery Court Judgment, to the Appeal Court Judgment.