Gray v Dalgety and Co Ltd [1916] HCA 35

Gray v Dalgety and Co Ltd [1916] HCA 35

The High Court held by majority that the oral agency agreement to procure a loan—on specified terms—was an enforceable contract and not within the Statute of Frauds, as it was not a contract concerning an interest in land. The jury’s findings that there was no exoneration by the plaintiff and that damages were properly assessed were supported by evidence. The contract was not void for uncertainty, and the respondent's arguments to the contrary were rejected.

Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: John Guthrie Gray; Defendant / Respondent: Dalgety & Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1916
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria, After New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment for plaintiff restored. Respondents to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Agent's Duty to Procure Loan, Statute of Frauds, Rescission and Exoneration of Contract, Damages for Breach of Agency Agreement
Contracts Agency Civil Procedure Agent's Duty to Procure Loan Statute of Frauds Rescission and Exoneration of Contract Damages for Breach of Agency Agreement

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Guthrie Gray

Plaintiff / Appellant

Dalgety & Co. Ltd.

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria, After New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral agency agreement to procure loan on mortgage was an enforceable contract
  2. 2 Whether the alleged contract was void for uncertainty/incompleteness
  3. 3 Whether the agency contract was void under the Statute of Frauds (Vict.)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held by majority that the oral agency agreement to procure a loan—on specified terms—was an enforceable contract and not within the Statute of Frauds, as it was not a contract concerning an interest in land. The jury’s findings that there was no exoneration by the plaintiff and that damages were properly assessed were supported by evidence. The contract was not void for uncertainty, and the respondent's arguments to the contrary were rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment for plaintiff restored. Respondents to pay costs.

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged.
  • Order of Court of Insolvency varied as mentioned.