Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth |
Decided | 4 May 1954 |
Citation(s) | [1954] HCA 20; (1954) 92 CLR 424 |
Case history | |
Appealed to | Privy Council |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb, Fullagar, and Kitto JJ |
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, [1] is a leading Australian case regarding what is an offer that, when accepted, gives rise to a legally binding contract. [2]
From 1939 and for the duration of the war, the Australian government had in place a system of price control which governed both the price of wool and the sale price in Australia of woollen garments. The first step in resuming normal practice after the war was the resumption of selling wool by auction and private sale after 30 June 1946. The price at which Australian Woollen Mills could sell its goods were fixed by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner until 20 September 1948. From 30 June 1946, the Australian government introduced a subsidy for the purchase of wool to be manufactured into garments in Australia and sold for local consumption. In 1948, the Australian government discontinued paying the subsidy, leaving Australian Woolen Mills with a substantial amount of wool on hand, for which the subsidy had not been paid.
As a result, Australian Woolen Mills sued for breach of contract, whilst the government denied liability on the grounds that there was no legally binding contract between the parties.
The High Court ruled that there was no legally binding contract between the parties, as all the government had done was merely to make a statement on government policy (i.e. the subsidy), which alone was not an offer capable of acceptance.
The Court stated "what is alleged to be an offer should have been intended to give rise, on the doing of the act, to an obligation ... in the absence of such an intention, actual or imputed, and alleged "offer" cannot lead to a contract: there is, indeed, in such a case no true "offer"." [1] :p 457
The Privy Council gave Australian Woolen Mills special leave to appeal, however dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that there was no contract to pay a subsidy. [3]
The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states and territories, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.
Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A judge of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking world and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist.
The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.
The law of Australia comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law. These include the Australian Constitution, legislation enacted by the Federal Parliament and the parliaments of the states and territories of Australia, regulations promulgated by the Executive, and the common law of Australia arising from the decisions of judges.
Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law. The offer and acceptance formula, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of formation when the parties are of one mind. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance.
Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:
In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.
Australian contract law concerns the legal enforcement of promises that were made as part of a bargain freely entered into, forming a legal relationship called a contract. The common law in Australia is based on the inherited English contract law, with specific statutory modifications of principles in some areas and the development of the law through the decisions of Australian courts, which have diverged somewhat from the English courts especially since the 1980s. This article is an overview of the key concepts with particular reference to Australian statutes and decisions. See contract law for very general doctrines relating to contract law.
A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, breach of which can give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.
Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd , was a decision of the High Court of Australia on 17 April 1985 concerning section 74 of the Constitution of Australia. The Court denied an application by the Attorney-General of Queensland seeking a certificate that would permit the Privy Council to hear an appeal from the High Court's decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd .
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 1935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. It continues to be cited as an authority in legal cases, and used as an example for students studying law.
A contract is a legally binding agreement that recognises and governs the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement. A contract is legally enforceable because it meets the requirements and approval of the law. An agreement typically involves the exchange of goods, services, money, or promises of any of those. In the event of breach of contract, the law awards the injured party access to legal remedies such as damages and cancellation.
Contractual terms in English law is a topic which deals with four main issues.
Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth – most commonly known as Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth and also referred to as The Airlines Case or the ANA Case – was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under sections 51 and 92 of the Australian Constitution. The outcome of the case was that the Federal Government could found a federally owned airline, but it could not hinder private sector competition with that airline.
New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.
Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:
In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.
Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and of excise. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.