JS Robertson (Aust) Pty Ltd v Martin [1956] HCA 2

JS Robertson (Aust) Pty Ltd v Martin [1956] HCA 2

There was no binding contract between the appellant and the respondents. The correspondence, particularly the plaintiff's order and the respondents' reply, did not constitute an acceptance of an offer on definite terms; essential terms such as the exclusive distribution right were not agreed. Accordingly, the respondents were not liable as sellers, whether as principals or agents. Even if a contract existed, the respondents did not deal in goods of that description so as to trigger an implied condition of merchantable quality under s.19(ii) of the Goods Act 1928 (Vic.).

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: J. S. Robertson (Aust.) Pty. Ltd.; Respondents; Defendants: Angela Martin and Arthur William Martin (trading as Arnos Supplies Co.); Co Defendant (not Served): W. T. Driver
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Conditions in Sale of Goods, Merchantable Quality, Agency and Principal Liability, Formation of Contract, Sale by Sample and Description
Contract Law Sale of Goods Implied Conditions in Sale of Goods Merchantable Quality Agency and Principal Liability Formation of Contract Sale by Sample and Description

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

Parties

J. S. Robertson (Aust.) Pty. Ltd.

Appellant; Plaintiff

Angela Martin and Arthur William Martin (trading as Arnos Supplies Co.)

Respondents; Defendants

W. T. Driver

Co Defendant (not Served)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed between the appellant and the respondents for the sale of goods
  2. 2 Whether the respondents contracted as principals or as agents for W. T. Driver
  3. 3 Whether there was an implied condition as to merchantable quality under s.19(ii) of the Goods Act 1928 (Vic.)

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding contract between the appellant and the respondents. The correspondence, particularly the plaintiff's order and the respondents' reply, did not constitute an acceptance of an offer on definite terms; essential terms such as the exclusive distribution right were not agreed. Accordingly, the respondents were not liable as sellers, whether as principals or agents. Even if a contract existed, the respondents did not deal in goods of that description so as to trigger an implied condition of merchantable quality under s.19(ii) of the Goods Act 1928 (Vic.).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Questions in the case stated answered: (1) No; (2) and (3): These questions do not arise.
  • Costs of the case stated to be dealt with by judge disposing of the appeal.