South Africa.


1. Introduction.

1.1. Over the years Evode Ltd. had attempted to negotiate terms with various
        companies in South Africa to establish a licensee used Evode technology.
1.2. The ideal company would be one which was already in production on the margins
       of the industries in which adhesives could be used.
1.3. It was also envisaged that the license could eventually be extended to the use of
       Evode products which were employed in the building industry.

2. Sources.

2.1. The information pertaining to the South African licensee is contained in nine
       different files.
2.2. D5189/4/3/59 is lodged in the Stafford Records Office and contains details of
       Graeme Stead`s visit to Stafford. File No.1.
2.3. D5189/4/3/60 is lodged in Stafford Record Office and contains plans of the
       Elvolac factory. File No.2.
2.4. D5189/4/3/61 is lodged in Stafford Record Office and contains photographs of
       the Elvolac factory. File No.3.
2.5. D5189/4/3/62 is lodged in Stafford record Office and contains Batch Logs used
       by Elvolac in the manufacture of various adhesives. File No.4.
2.6. D5189/4/3/63 is lodged in Stafford Record Office and is a correspondence file
       containing background data competitive products available in the Republic of
       South Africa and also a few letters. File No.5.
2.7. D5189/4/3/64 is lodged in Stafford Record Office and contains brochures of
       products made by Elvolac. File No.6.
2.8. D5189/4/3/65 is lodged in Stafford Record Office and contains correspondence
       between Evode Ltd. and various organisations in South Africa which had
       approached the company with a view to taking a license. File No.7.
2.9. This file contains an unsigned copy of the license for the manufacture of
       adhesives in South Africa taken out between Evode Ltd. and Elvolac (Pty.) Ltd.
       File No.8. At the time of writing this file is lodged on Stafford Site.
2.10. This file contains correspondence which passed between Evode Ltd. and
         Elvolac (Pty.) Ltd. August 1971-September 1981. File No.9.
         At the time of writing this file is lodged on Stafford site.

3. Agreements.

3.1. The copy of the agreement on file dated 2 December 1971 is not the original and
       signators names are pencilled in.
3.2. The registered name, factory and offices of the licensee are given as:-

Elvolac (Pty.) Ltd.,
16, Ivy Road, Pinetown,
Near Durban,
Republic of South Africa.


3.3. At the time of the signing of the agreement the Directors of the company are :-

R. W. Draper, Chairman
S. J. Draper
T. W. Draper

3.4. The other members of staff who signed the confidentiality agreement in October
       1972 are given as:-

R. G. Finnie
S. R. McNair
G.R. Stead
A. D. Jeffries

3.5. This agreement followed the lines of other agreements reached by Evode Ltd.
       with other licensees,
3.6. Sales were restricted to the Republic of South Africa.
3.7. The rates of royalty to be paid to Evode Ltd. were given as follows:-

5% on turnover up to and including £100,000
4% on turnover up to and including £200,000
3% to be paid in excess of £200,000.

       Royalties to be paid free of any reduction whatsoever.
3.8. If the minimum royalties fell below the figures stated the licensee would pay the
       deficiency to Evode Ltd. within 42 days:-
For the first period of 12 months the minimum royalty would be £500.
          For the second period of 12 months the minimum royalty would be £1,000.
For the third and subsequent years the minimum royalty would be £2,500.
       following the date of manufacture on a commercial scale, as agreed between the
       principals.
       (It was obvious that Evode Ltd. regarded the Republic of South Africa as a
       lucrative market as the minimum royalty figures were set so high).
3.9. By virtue of this agreement the licensee could use the Evode Ltd. Trade Marks.

3.10. The period of the license was for 15 years with provision for an extension which could be negotiated between the principals.
3.11. The agreement and terms were subject to them being acceptable to the
         government of the Republic of South Africa.
3.12. As with other agreements negotiated by HS this one was open ended which, in
         effect, meant that the licensee could request and receive any information on the
         range of products made by Evode Ltd., governing principally adhesive products.
3.13. HS and JEL have signed the agreement in pencil for Evode Ltd.
R. W. Draper has signed for Elvolac.

3.14. Supplementary Agreement.
3.15. This supplementary agreement between the original parties is dated 7 April
         1972.
3.16. This agreement referred to that of 2 December 1971.
         Although not specified in the original agreement Evode Ltd. apparently awarded
         awarded a license to Elvolac to manufacture adhesives, mastics and sealants but
         excluded Flashband, none of which are mentioned in the original agreement.
3.17. This supplemental agreement gave to Elvolac the rights to manufacture "any
         other product or products as may be agreed in writing from time to time
         between the parties and secret formulations associated with these products".
3.18. This supplemental agreement is not signed by any of the parties from either of
         the companies.

4. D5189/4/3/63. This file contains some relevant letters. File No.5.

4.1. 18 February 1972.
       PWD wrote to G. R. Stead that Elvolac had acquired Braeman Agencies in Port
       Elizabeth which distributed Persomol there. When Elvolac had a product to
       replace Persomol they would begin to handle it. GRS was asked to evaluate the
       products which Braeman Agencies made. At this time GRS was at Stafford.
4.2. 14 December 1972.
       GRS wrote to WJL.
       A company called Poly Resin Products were manufacturing Vinyl Products
       adhesives under license but had now discontinued.
       GRS sent details of the products made by Hoechst, Revertex and Triton (Rohm &
       Haas).
4.3. 18 October 1974.
       PWD wrote to WJL following his visit to Elvolac.
       Obviously this visit made a successful contribution to Elvolac`s attempt to break
       into the adhesives market in the Republic.
4.4. This file mainly contains data on products made by other companies and which
       Elvolac was assembling for possible use in a range of products to be made under
       license. It also contains some information on raw materials data acquired by
       Elvolac which were used during production.

  

5. D5189/4/3/65. Correspondence with other companies in South Africa.


File No.7.
5.1. As previously stated it was obvious that Evode Ltd had desires to appoint a
  licensee in South Africa.
5.2. For a number of years correspondence had been conducted with various
  organisations to find a suitable partner.
5.3. The companies which corresponded with Evode Ltd. included:
Industrial Chemical Products (Pty.) Ltd.
Vialit Road Products (Pty.) Ltd., a subsidiary of
The National Match Co. Ltd. of Pretoria.
W. J. Bush, South Africa Ltd.(Pty.) Ltd.
5.4. Nothing came of these exchanges.

6. Correspondence between 28 July 1971 - 21 September 1981.File No.9.


6.1. 28 July 1971.
R. W. Draper wrote to HS.
By implication this letter suggests that Elvolac, which is part of The Paint
Manufacturers Association and makers of industrial finishes, wishes to associate
themselves with Evode Ltd. to make and market adhesives of which they had no
experience.
RWD knew that Evode was exploring other possibilities and did not want to wait too long for a decision although Evode was his desired partner and HS had been impressed with Elvolac on a previous visit.
An early decision was requested.
(RWD was obviously the father of the family which owned Elvolac and RJ and PW Draper were his sons).
6.2. 2 August 1971.
       HS replied to the above letter asking for a stay of one month when he expected
       his negotiations to be complete.
6.3. 10 August 1971.
       RWD agreed to the above suggestion.
6.4. 24 August 1971.
       HS sent a telex to RWD advising that Elvolac could proceed with a license.
       A letter followed.
6.5. 24 August 1971.
       HS wrote to RWD.
       This letter was in reply to a telex from RWD advising HS that Elvolac would now
       go ahead with the license. There were obviously some points of contention with
       the original agreement which could be discussed.
6.6. 25 August 1971.
       RWD replied to the telex sent by HS advising that he would proceed with the
       license.
6.7. 30 August 1971.
       RWD wrote to HS acknowledging his letter of 24 August and referring to his
       telex of 25 August.
       HS had sent a copy of a draft agreement to RWD and he replied as follows:-
1. As the types of products for which they were to be licensed were not
     specifically described RWD wanted this aspect to be made clear. In a later
            telegram he suggested that mastics and sealants should be included.
2. He also wished the territory allowed to Elvolac to be widened as they already
     had associations in Mozambique, Angola and Rhodesia.
3. With regard to Clause 5A, Trade Marks, in order to generate business RWD
     suggested that he should be allowed to provide products to other companies
            which did not have the manufacturing facilities, in unlabelled containers. He
            cited The Dunlop Rubber Co. in RSA as an example.
6.8. 3 September 1971.
       HS replied to the questions raised in the above letter.
1. He agreed that mastics and sealants could be included as could sealing strips.
     Evode already had an agent for Flashband in RSA so that product was
     excluded.
2. The license included adhesives for the shoe trade. Evode would prefer Elvolac
     to co-operate with Colin D. Bailey (Pty.) in RSA.
3. Mozambique and Angola could not be allowed to Elvolac as these were part of
     Somaco`s (licensee in Portugal) sales areas. Rhodesia did not raise a problem
            but as Evode enjoyed large export sales to other African countries these were
            also excluded.
4. The minimum royalties required were those stated in the appropriate section
     of the agreement.
5. Private label selling was acceptable but, if Elvolac sold products subject to
     the license to the market this must be done using Evode Ltd. Trade Marks.

6.9. 21 September 1971.
       HS sent to RWD engrossed copies of the agreement by letter and one photostat
       copy requesting that the engrossed copies were signed and returned. One
       engrossed copy would be sent back to Elvolac.
6.10.5 October 1971.
        HS acknowledged the return of the engrossed copies of the agreement.
         However the transfer of royalties did not prove to be as simple as anticipated
         due to the Company Law operating in RSA although the difficulties are not
         specified. RWD was asked to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
6.11. 29 October 1971.
         HS advised RWD that, whilst in RSA, he had visited Mr. N. Griffin of
         Weldmesh in the Transvaal. Mr. Griffin`s father is the Chairman of British
         Reinforced Concrete in Stafford, with which Evode are on very friendly terms.
         Apparently Weldmesh had applied for the Evode license in RSA and bore no ill
         feelings that it went to Elvolac and they would like to distribute the products
         which Elvolac make, but this was a decision for Elvolac.
         HS pointed out that Weldmesh deal with the building trade and Evode could
         offer a lot of experience in this area. RWD`s thoughts on this matter were
         requested.
6.12. 29 November 1971.
         RWD wrote to HS enclosing the copy of a letter received from Barclays
         National Bank Ltd.
         ( The address to which this letter was sent was Messrs. Elvolac (Transvaal)
         (Pty.) Ltd., P.O. Box 27123, Benrose, Transvaal which was different from the
         factory address).
         RWD advised that the agreement had been approved by the Government.
         Although the Government had imposed import controls which applied mainly to
         consumer goods, permission had been granted to Elvolac to obtain raw materials
         from abroad but the majority of them were available domestically.
6.13. 2 December 1971.
         JEL sent the engrossments of the license to A&O together with a copy of the
         letter from Barclays Bank.
         The stamped engrossments were returned to Evode by A&O on 13 December
         and then sent to Elvolac on 15 December.
6.14. 18 January 1972.
         JJEF wrote to RWD concerning Trade Marks and spelled out that, where
         "Evo-Stik Impact" was used "Impact" should always be shown in quotation
         marks as it is an invented word. The descriptive word for the product is
         "Contact" which is registered in RSA.
         RWD was asked to let Evode know which version would be used.
         As part of the agreement the use of Trade Marks could be extended to any of
         Evode`s products. Where chosen the Trade Mark must be entered into the
         Users Rights Agreement, signed by both parties and recorded by the appropriate
         authority, giving the licensee the right to use the Trade Mark. This is done by
         Evode`s Trade Mark Agent in London.
6.15. 16 February 1972.
         RWD wrote to HS advising him that Elvolac had been selling adhesives
         (presumably PVA-based products) to Sprite Caravans since late November

1971. These early products were based on an Elvolac formulation but they
changed to an Evode formulation subsequently.
The question posed by RWD was that, commercially, Elvolac would not start to
produce products under license until June or July 1972 and would like a view on
when the royalty payments would start.
6.16. 23 February 1972.

         On 22 February HS wrote a memo to JEL asking for his advice on the above.
         JEL replied:-
1. Clause 17.
     Barclay`s letter of 22 November 1971 is quoted and it is assumed that
     approval would have been given a few days prior to this.
2. The date of the signed agreement was 2 December 1971.
3. Clause 4(e).
     This deals with the minimum royalties and should commence on either the
     date of manufacture on a commercial scale or six months after the date of the
     agreement, whichever is the earlier.
4. It was suggested that 1 July 1972 should be taken as when payment of
     royalties should be started, taking into account the products sold by Elvolac
     prior to this date.
Replying to Elvolac on this matter was left to JEL.
6.17. 25 February 1972.
         JEL replied to RWD that:-
1. The date on which approval was given should stand so far as Clause 17 was
     concerned.
2. The minimum royalty should be paid for 6 months after November 1972 or
     from an earlier date from when commercial production commenced.
It was noticed that, at this time, Graeme Stead who was Chief Chemist of Elvolac was visiting Stafford. He returned to Elvolac in March taking with him copies of the Supplemental Agreement which were to be signed and sent back to
Evode.
The engrossed copies of the agreement were signed and returned to Evode on
19 April 1972. A copy was returned to Elvolac on 21 April after being stamped by A&O.
6.18. 9 July 1974.
         TQDD wrote to RWD.
         Apparently there had been discussion on the possibility of setting up an Evode
         Ltd. company in RSA in conjunction with Elvolac.
         TQDD wrote that he would be delighted to discuss this matter with RWD during
         his forthcoming visit but, prior to that, Evode`s lawyers were being asked to
         draw up a list of conditions and to calculate the approximate cost incurred.
         He also asked for prices of mastics and sealants being paid by customers in the
         building trade and details of import duty should Evode supply to Elvolac during
         the interim period. He also wanted to know whether import permits were
         required.
6.19. 18 July 1974.
         JEL had approached A&O for their opinion on setting up a new company in
         RSA in conjunction with Elvolac.
         Their opinion was:-
1. The name Evode should not be used.
2. If Evode was to be used in RSA
a) The new company must have a new name as soon as the distributor
     agreements came to an end.
b) The new company should sell only Evode products.
6.20. 19 July 1974.
         In a memo from HS to TQDD he expressed the desire that Evode should not be
         used in a company name in RSA taking into consideration that it was close to
         "Evo" and "Elvo".
6.21. 22 July 1974.
         TQDD wrote to RWD advising that Evode`s lawyers had suggested that no new
         company should be established in RSA unless it was wholly owned by Evode
         and that its title contained the Evode name. This would be very expensive and
         time consuming and, as such, was rejected by Evode.
         In a memo of the same date HS was informed of the decision.
6.22. 7 May 1976.
         TQDD wrote to RJD concerning an alteration in the license agreement which
         Elvolac had submitted to Evode. This had been sent to Evode`s lawyers for
         comment.
         Their suggestions were enclosed with this letter and Elvolac`s comments were
         requested.
         Neither the draft of the lawyers suggestions not the comments that they
         generated are on file.

6.23. 13 July 1977.
         SBK wrote to Mr. R. B. Ritchie at Prolux Paints (Transvaal) (Pty.) Ltd. at
         (EDMS) BPK, P.O. Box 4066, Alrode 1451, RSA.
         The letter is headed "Amendment to the Agreement. Substitution of Elvolac by
         Prolux".
         Two copies of the Amendment of the Agreement were attached for signing. It
         requested that both copies were returned to Evode Ltd. Subsequently
         (presumably after engrossment) a copy would be passed back to RSA.
         There is no evidence on file what this letter means. Presumably it was a change
         of name of the company. It is speculated that Elvolac had been acquired by
         Prolux Paints.
         As the Evode letter was written by SBK it can be assumed that TQDD had left
         or was on the point of leaving the company.
6.24. 5 September 1977.
         SBK wrote to PWD with a copy to K. M. Dienst, Prolux Paints Holdings.
         Although the initials of TQDD are present on the letter he is not copied in.
         It was obvious that this company had again begun to take an interest in mastics
         and sealants. It had previously been dropped from the agreement as it was
         considered not to be within the range of Elvolac.
         In this case a number of questions were posed.

1. What was Prolux`s approach to concerned parties?
2. What sales force would be employed on this venture?
3. What product range would be offered?
4. What was the current market size for the products in question and what were the prices obtained?
5. What was the current works cost of Polevogun?
This data was required to assist Evode to progress the request.

6.25. 16 September 1977.
         This was a letter from H. G. Swart, Secretary for Industry to the General
         Manager, Exchange Control Dept., South Africa Reserve Bank, Pretoria, RSA.
         It confirms that the company had undergone a change of name from Elvolac
         (Pty.) Ltd. to Prolux Paints Holdings Ltd. and refers to the existing license
         between Evode Ltd. and Elvolac and mentions Prolux Paints as a substitute
         licensee.
         There is no objection to the change of name and gives the new licensees bank
         as Barclays National Bank Ltd., Selby Branch, Johannesburg.
         A copy of this letter was sent to EJ by Mr. Ritchie on 21 September 1977.
6.26. 30 March 1978.
         SBK wrote to PWD
         "Use of the Rockgrip Trade Mark". (Rockgrip was a Trade Mark of Prolux
         Paints).
         Apparently the company wished to change the name in RSA but it was pointed
         out that Evode would rather the use of "Rockgrip" be maintained as it was a
         registered Trade Mark in RSA and that this formed part of the agreement with
         Evode and Elvolac/Prolux Paints.
6.27. 2 May 1978.
         This letter again concerns the use of "Rockgrip" without using the Trade Mark
         "Evo-Stik".
         It was pointed out that before the license was entered into with Elvolac Evode
         exported "Evo-Stik" to RSA. It was a known brand and its use should not pose
         any inconvenience.
6.28. 8 May 1978.
         SBK wrote to PWD that his proposal that Prolux Paints should be able to sell
         product in the Sychelles and Mautitius must be rejected. Evode Ltd. was already
         well represented in these territories.
6.29. 29 August 1979.
         This was a report prepared by SBK on his meeting with Mr. K. M. Dienst of
         Prolux Paints Holdings.
         Apparently PPH took over Elvolac Ltd. 18 months ago and regarded the license
         agreement between them and Evode not to their liking. This meeting was to
         obtain an exchange of views and the following was the result:-
1. PPH wanted to withdraw from providing adhesives for the shoe trade and also from industry in general.
2. The options considered were:-
a) Terminate the agreement. This was considered a negative approach as
              Evode Ltd. wanted a strong partner in RSA.
b) Leave the agreement as it is. This was not satisfactory to either party.
c) PPH have their own chain of shops in which they sell paints, varnishes,
                   wallpaper and plastic coatings. They would like to continue to supply
                   adhesives to the DIY trade and leave Evode free to negotiate an
                   agreement with another company to provide industrial products.
                  The latter appeared to be the best option while retaining the link with PPH
                  although a conflict of interests could be foreseen.
d) They would like to use their own brand name "Rockgrip" for the sale of
     Evode-based DIY adhesives.
     This could be done by allowing PPH to continue to manufacture as an
     Evode licensee or, if Evode came to an agreement with another company
     it could supply PPH.
The new managing Director of Evode Export Ltd.,Sydney Wynne-Simmons
preferred a firm association with PPH.
e) PPH had run a very successful TV campaign on Easifil, it was selling well
     and PPH wanted to buy the formulation.
As Evode wanted a successful wallpaper adhesive SBK suggested a trade off,
giving Easifil formulation to PPH in exchange for a good wallpaper adhesive,
without involving royalty costs.
f) PPH are not interested in mastics and sealants as they have their own
     technology from ICI.
g) They were looking for a reduction in the rate of royalty which, to date, they have found difficult to assess. Also they wanted the values changed
     changed from Sterling to Rands as this was closely linked to the American
     dollar.
h) The territories specified in the agreement were not to their liking as they
     had manufacturing facilities in many African countries and shops in many
     more.
This report was made widely available as SJW-S was leaving for Africa on
 4 October.
6.30. 4 January 1980.
         SBK Wrote to Mr. N. H. R. Pitts, Administration Officer of PPH. They had
         obviously pressed Evode for an answer concerning a license agreement.
         SBK advised that he had discussions with certain people concerning a new
         licensee and had met Mr. Vosloo from Adchem Ltd., Port Elizabeth to try to
         work out an agreement but nothing would be finalised until well into the
         New year.
6.31. 9 September 1981.
         PPH had been acquired by AECI Paints (Pty.) Ltd., 8, Juyn Street, Alrode 1450,
         PO Box 3704, Alrode 1450, Transvaal, RSA.
         Mr. R. B. Ritchie, a director of AECI wrote to SBK.
         It was obvious that Evode Ltd. had not been successful in finding a suitable
         licensee in RSA. This new company had ceased to use Evode technology and,
         by this letter, advised that it wished to terminate the agreement with Evode Ltd.
         as of 2 December 1982.
         As they now had only small stocks of product made to Evode technology they
         were assuming that the minimum royalty clause would not now be enforced.
         Mr. Ritchie apologised that matters had turned out as they had.
6.32. 21 September 1981.
         SBK wrote to Mr. Ritchie acknowledging his letter and accepting his
         suggestions.
         He advised that he would be visiting RSA before Christmas 1981 and would
         continue to search for another licensee.

March 2007.
Some comments on the Republic of South Africa and the South African licensees.
The Republic of South Africa is the southernmost country of Africa, bordered on the north west by Namibia, on the north by Botswana and Zimbabwe, on the north east by Mozambique and Swaziland, on the east and south by the Indian Ocean and on the west by the Atlantic Ocean.
The land area of the country is 472,831 sq. mls. (UK50,300 sq. mls.) and consists mainly of high land throughout the country of over 900 meters. It consists of the Highveld, the Bushveld and the Middle Veld.
Pretoria is the legislative capital of the country while Bloemfontein serves as the judicial capital. Other major cities are Johannesburg, Pietersburg, Durban, Kimberley, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth.
The principal rivers draining the country are the Orange, Vaal and Limpopo.
Mountain ranges run from north to south of the country consisting of Witwatersrand, Drakensburg, Roggeveld, Snuee and Nuveld. The coastal plain on the eastern seaboard is the most fertile in the country in which Durban and east London lie.
The country has a temperate-sub-tropical climate with a wide variation of conditions due to its topography, the east of the country being subject to easterly trade winds off the Indian Ocean which take place in the summer months of October to April and deliver about 35 inches of rainfall. Other higher more westerly areas will only receive about 2 inches of rain. The Cape area is subject to the Atlantic winds and gets around 22 inches of rain during South Africa`s winter.
Temperature varies widely and is subject to its topography and location. It is dictated by elevation.
It is rich in mineral resources, particularly gold which is mined around Witwatersrand, diamonds in the Kimberley area and coal.
At the time of the license with Elvolac in 1971 the population was about 25 million but has grown very rapidly over the years. Blacks formed the greatest part of the population coming mainly from the Zulu, Xhosa, Twana and Sotha tribes. Whites were descended from Dutch (Africaans), German and French Huguenots. The British arrived after the purchase of the Cape Colony from the Dutch in 1814 for £6 million and soon took over. British became the official language in 1822 although Africaans is also recognised as are a number of native languages including Bantu. The British abolished slavery in 1833. Over the years people from the Asian areas have arrived in South Africa.
At the time of the license RSA consisted of four provinces, Cape, Natal, the Orange Free State and Transvaal the latter two being made self governing in 1906 and 1907 respectively before the Union of South Africa was founded in 1910.
Over the years the constitution of RSA has changed considerably but when Evode negotiated with Elvolac there were 48 members of the Senate elected for 10 years and 159 elected members of the House of Representatives elected for 5 years. All electors had to be of South African citizenship and of European descent. The franchise was given to female electors in 1930.
Apartheit was introduced into the Union in the 1940s and it was not until the 1970s that it began to break down. The first universal elections were held in 1994 after Nelson Mandela was released from prison but the country has always been troubled by politically motivated mobs.
In World War I lead by the pro-British President Botha their forces fought on the British side and defeated the Germans in South West Africa (Namibia). During WWII all members of the South African forces were volunteers and fought in the Western Desert and in Italy.
RSA belongs to the Community of Nations (it did not at the time of the signing of the licensee agreement), The Organisation of African Unity and The South African Development Corporation.

It is quite obvious that an enormous amount of the correspondence which passed between the companies is missing. The majority was between G. R. Stead and the Licensee Laboratory alluding to technical matters but ones which were essential to the success of Elvolac in the market place. It was very obvious from the outset that Elvolac was quite inexperienced so far as adhesives were concerned and did not know a great deal about the industrial workplace.
As previously pointed out the South African licensees were interviewed and appointed by HS being given an open ended license.
The time spent by GRS at Stafford and that by WJL in Pinetown assisted the progress of the company very much, although to my mind they had two very difficult problems to solve. One was the poor internal discipline in the factory. While they had been making paint in this factory for some years I found the factory manager smoking a cigarette on the shop floor and did not resolve the problem until I threatened to leave if the practice did not stop. Secondly was the labour problem which they faced. The majority was, of course, black labour who were used to leaving the job at the drop of a hat and going back to their villages. A lot of them were employed from outside the town. They came back to the factory and took up where they left off and no discipline was taken against them. It was a very difficult environment in which to run a business.

GRS was trained as a paint technologist and is basically why he joined Elvolac. He was not, at the outset, ready to take on adhesives but over the years he coped very well. He was married to a very dominant lady, had two girls, but slowly the marriage broke down. When we were together he many times told me of his desire to leave South Africa (it was at this time becoming quite lawless and uncomfortable to live in) and he wished to emigrate to Canada. Whether he did so I do not know but I do know that he eventually left the company.
With the expanding economy taking place in South Africa it was inevitable that Elvolac which was rather a small company surrounded by bigger players was taken over. It seemed that in the early stages some of the Draper family were kept on in the company. However the new owners were quite big in the market and in effect did not need Evode and its technology hence the agreement was terminated.

March 2007.