Lynch v Stiff [1943] HCA 38

Lynch v Stiff [1943] HCA 38

Lynch held himself out, and was represented, as a partner in the firm. The respondent, Stiff, entrusted his money to the firm on the faith of this representation. It is not required under s. 14(1) of the Partnership Act 1892 (N.S.W.) to prove the respondent would not have given credit without the representation; it suffices that he relied on it. Therefore, Lynch is liable as if he were a partner.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: Thomas Davis Lynch; Respondent; Plaintiff: Edward Stiff
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court) to High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Holding Out as Partner, Liability for Misrepresentation, Estoppel, Partnership Act 1892 (n.s.w.) S. 14(1)
Partnership Law Holding Out as Partner Liability for Misrepresentation Estoppel Partnership Act 1892 (n.s.w.) S. 14(1)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Davis Lynch

Appellant; Defendant

Edward Stiff

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court) to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 14(1) of the Partnership Act 1892 (N.S.W.) requires proof that credit would not have been given apart from the holding out
  2. 2 Whether the appellant, Lynch, was liable as a partner by holding out

Ratio Decidendi

Lynch held himself out, and was represented, as a partner in the firm. The respondent, Stiff, entrusted his money to the firm on the faith of this representation. It is not required under s. 14(1) of the Partnership Act 1892 (N.S.W.) to prove the respondent would not have given credit without the representation; it suffices that he relied on it. Therefore, Lynch is liable as if he were a partner.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.