Purcell v Bacon [1914] HCA 86

Purcell v Bacon [1914] HCA 86

The majority (Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich JJ.) held that Oliffe had neither actual nor apparent authority to vary the date for delivery of the Lake Dunn cattle, nor had Purcell ratified any alleged variation. The arrangement between the plaintiff and Oliffe amounted to an unauthorized variation, not binding on Purcell. The contract was severable, and acceptance of the Ballyneety cattle, being a separate transaction, did not require Purcell to accept late delivery of the Lake Dunn cattle. Purcell was thus entitled to judgment and only nominal damages for breach of contract.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: Thomas Purcell; Respondent; Plaintiff: Edwin Charles Bacon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1914
Procedural Posture
Appeal (contract; Sale of Goods) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of Full Court discharged. Judgment for defendant with costs, and nominal damages of one shilling on counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Authority of Agent, Severability of Contract, Time of Delivery, Variation of Contract, Waiver, Breach of Contract, Damages
Contract Law Sale of Goods Authority of Agent Severability of Contract Time of Delivery Variation of Contract Waiver Breach of Contract +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Purcell

Appellant; Defendant

Edwin Charles Bacon

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal (contract; Sale of Goods) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agent (Oliffe) had authority (actual or apparent) to vary the contract as to time for delivery of cattle.
  2. 2 Whether the contract for the sale was entire or severable.
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of part of the cattle barred refusal of the remainder under the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld).

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich JJ.) held that Oliffe had neither actual nor apparent authority to vary the date for delivery of the Lake Dunn cattle, nor had Purcell ratified any alleged variation. The arrangement between the plaintiff and Oliffe amounted to an unauthorized variation, not binding on Purcell. The contract was severable, and acceptance of the Ballyneety cattle, being a separate transaction, did not require Purcell to accept late delivery of the Lake Dunn cattle. Purcell was thus entitled to judgment and only nominal damages for breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of Full Court discharged. Judgment for defendant with costs, and nominal damages of one shilling on counterclaim.

Orders

  • Order of Full Court discharged with costs.
  • Judgment of Lukin J. discharged.