McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission

Last updated

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Citation(s) [1951] HCA 79, (1951) 84 CLR 377
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court Webb J
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting McTiernan, Dixon and Fullagar JJ.
Keywords
Frustration

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission, [1] is an Australian contract law case, relevant for English contract law, concerning the common mistake about the possibility of performing an agreement.

Contents

Facts

The Commonwealth Disposals Commission sold McRae a shipwreck of a tanker on the "Jourmand Reef", near Samarai supposedly containing oil. The McRae brothers went to Samarai and found no tanker, and that there was no such place as the Jourmand Reef. It later became clear that the Commission officer had made a 'reckless and irresponsible' mistake in thinking that they had a tanker to sell (the Court found that they had relied on mere gossip). The McRae brothers incurred considerable expense in fitting out a salvage operation.

The McRae brothers commenced an action claiming damages against the Commission. First they claimed damages for breach of contract to sell a tanker at the location specified. Second, they claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation that there was a tanker. Third, they claimed damages for a negligent failure to disclose that there was no tanker at the place specified after the fact became known to the Commissioner. CDC argued there was no liability for breach of contract because it was void given the subject matter did not exist.

Furthermore, in relation to the expenditure incurred by McRae, the CDC argued that “Non constat [It is not clear or evident] that the expenditure incurred by the plaintiffs would not have been equally wasted. If the promise that there was a tanker in situe had been performed, she might still have been found worthless or not susceptible of profitable salvage operations or of any salvage operations at all. How, then… can the plaintiffs say that their expenditure was wasted because there was no tanker in existence?" [1]

Judgment

The High Court of Australia held that McRae succeeded in damages for breach of contract. They rejected the contract was void because CDC had promised the tanker did exist. Courturier v Hastie was distinguished because there the parties had both shared the assumption the corn existed, but here CDC had actually promised the tanker existed and therefore had assumed the risk that it did not.

A general ruling that can be gleaned from the court's judgment is that in circumstances where parties have equal knowledge as to the existence of the subject matter, and it turned out to be false, then it would justify the implication of a condition precedent. In that case, the contract would be void for the failure of the condition precedent, and parties would be restored to their original position. However, in a case where only one party has knowledge of the subject matter (such as the present circumstances), and the other simply relies on what the first party intimates, then there could be no condition precedent. The first party promises or guarantees the existence of the subject matter and will be in breach if it does not exist. [1]

The High Court considered the measure of damages, as this was not a simple case of nondelivery of goods. In opposition to CDC’s argument that McRae’s expenditure was not wasted, Dixon and Fullagar JJ stated: “They [McRae] can say: (1) this expense was incurred; (2) it was incurred because you promised us that there was a tanker; (3) the fact that there was no tanker made it certain that this expense would be wasted. The plaintiffs have in this way a starting-point. They make a prima-facie case. The fact that the expense was wasted flowed prima facie from the fact that there was no tanker; and the first fact is damage, and the second fact is breach of contract." [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privity of contract</span> Legal Principle

The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon anyone who is not a party to that contract. It is related to, but distinct from, the doctrine of consideration, according to which a promise is legally enforceable only if valid consideration has been provided for it, and a plaintiff is legally entitled to enforce such a promise only if they are a promisee from whom the consideration has moved.

<i>Quantum meruit</i> Latin Phrase

Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

Hadley & Anor v Baxendale& Ors [1854] EWHC J70 is a leading English contract law case. It sets the leading rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen. However, if the other party has special knowledge that the party-in-breach does not, the breaching party is only liable for the losses that he could have foreseen on the information available to them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully, can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable, or alternatively, an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake', and the 'common mistake'. The distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake' is important.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

Damages for breach of contract is a common law remedy, available as of right. It is designed to compensate the victim for their actual loss as a result of the wrongdoer’s breach rather than to punish the wrongdoer. If no loss has been occasioned by the plaintiff, only nominal damages will be awarded.

Loss of chance in English law refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation. The general rule is that while a loss of chance is compensable when the chance was something promised on a contract it is not generally so in the law of tort, where most cases thus far have been concerned with medical negligence in the public health system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Expectation damages</span>

Expectation damages are damages recoverable from a breach of contract by the non-breaching party. An award of expectation damages protects the injured party's interest in realising the value of the expectancy that was created by the promise of the other party. Thus, the impact of the breach on the promisee is to be effectively "undone" with the award of expectation damages.

Reliance damages is the measure of compensation given to a person who suffered an economic harm for acting in reliance on a party who failed to fulfill their obligation. If the injured party could go back in time, they should be indifferent to entering into the contract that would be breached and receiving the reliance damages as opposed to not entering into any contract with the breaching party. The injured party should be put in a substantially similar situation position as they would have been had the contract not been entered into. This is different from expectation damages, where the injured party should be indifferent between the fulfillment of the contract and never having entered into the contract.

The law of mistake comprises a group of separate rules in English contract law. If the law deems a mistake to be sufficiently grave, then a contract entered into on the grounds of the mistake may be void. A mistake is an incorrect understanding by one or more parties to a contract. There are essentially three types of mistakes in contract,

A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date, and the activities and intentions of the parties entering into a contract may be referred to as contracting. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or equitable remedies such as specific performance or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty.

<i>Leaf v International Galleries</i> 1950n English contract law case

Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation, mistake and breach of contract, and the limits to the equitable remedy of rescission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon</span> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.

<i>Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd</i>

Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 is an old English contract law and UK labour law case, which used to restrict damages for non-pecuniary losses for breach of contract.

<i>Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd</i> English contract law case

Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407 is a case in English contract law which investigates when a common mistake within a contractual agreement will render it void.

<i>Anglia Television Ltd v Reed</i>

Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 QB 60 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to reliance damages for loss flowing from a breach of contract.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951] HCA 79 , (1951) 84 CLR 377 , High Court (Australia).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.