Maybury v Atlantic Union Oil Co Ltd [1953] HCA 89

Maybury v Atlantic Union Oil Co Ltd [1953] HCA 89

The alleged collateral agreement was inconsistent with the express terms of the written contract, which vested the company with discretion as to broadcast date, hour, or time. Thus, the collateral agreement could not stand and was unenforceable. The agreements did not prohibit further broadcasts beyond one weekly, and the company was entitled to broadcast using recordings; thus, no obligation was breached by additional broadcasts.

Parties
Appellants; Defendants: Maybury and another; Respondent; Plaintiff: Atlantic Union Oil Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1953
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Collateral Agreement, Construction of Written Contract, Consistency of Agreements, Interlocutory Orders, Appeals
Contract Law Collateral Agreement Construction of Written Contract Consistency of Agreements Interlocutory Orders Appeals

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maybury and another

Appellants; Defendants

Atlantic Union Oil Company Limited

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged oral collateral agreement is enforceable given inconsistency with the written contract
  2. 2 Whether an obligation arose not to broadcast more than once weekly under the agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged collateral agreement was inconsistent with the express terms of the written contract, which vested the company with discretion as to broadcast date, hour, or time. Thus, the collateral agreement could not stand and was unenforceable. The agreements did not prohibit further broadcasts beyond one weekly, and the company was entitled to broadcast using recordings; thus, no obligation was breached by additional broadcasts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.