Gray v Dalgety and Co Ltd [1914] HCA 81

Gray v Dalgety and Co Ltd [1914] HCA 81

There was evidence upon which reasonable men might find the defendants undertook for valuable consideration to procure lenders for the specified sums, and such a contract, if found by a jury, would not be void for indefiniteness nor struck by the Statute of Frauds as a contract concerning an interest in land. The agency contract is distinct from a contract to mortgage, and the jury should decide the factual questions.

Parties
Appellant, Plaintiff: John Guthrie Gray; Respondents, Defendants: Dalgety & Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria to High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Order appealed from discharged. New trial granted. Respondents to pay costs of motion to the Supreme Court and of this appeal. Costs of first trial to be costs in the action.
Legal Topics
Agency, Agreement to Procure Loan, Statute of Frauds, Interest in Land
Contract Law Agency Agreement to Procure Loan Statute of Frauds Interest in Land

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Guthrie Gray

Appellant, Plaintiff

Dalgety & Co. Ltd.

Respondents, Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there an enforceable contract between the plaintiff and defendants to procure a loan?
  2. 2 Did the oral agreement require writing under the Statute of Frauds/Instruments Act 1890 (Vict.), sec. 208?
  3. 3 Was the contract incomplete due to indefinite terms?

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence upon which reasonable men might find the defendants undertook for valuable consideration to procure lenders for the specified sums, and such a contract, if found by a jury, would not be void for indefiniteness nor struck by the Statute of Frauds as a contract concerning an interest in land. The agency contract is distinct from a contract to mortgage, and the jury should decide the factual questions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Order appealed from discharged. New trial granted. Respondents to pay costs of motion to the Supreme Court and of this appeal. Costs of first trial to be costs in the action.

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged
  • New trial granted