J Kitchen and Sons Pty Ltd v Stewart's Cash and Carry Stores [1942] HCA 18

J Kitchen and Sons Pty Ltd v Stewart's Cash and Carry Stores [1942] HCA 18

Upon acceptance, a contract of indefinite duration arose that neither party could determine unilaterally except upon breach. The contract was not void as an unreasonable restraint of trade and did not constitute a commercial trust within the meaning of the Profiteering Prevention Act. The obligations under the agreement continued notwithstanding the source of the goods, and there was no illegality.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: J. Kitchen & Sons Pty. Ltd.; Respondent; Defendant: Stewart's Cash and Carry Stores
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Offer and Acceptance, Restraint of Trade, Price Maintenance Agreements, Illegality Under Statute, Commercial Trust Under Profiteering Prevention Act 1920 (q)
Contract Law Trade Practices Offer and Acceptance Restraint of Trade Price Maintenance Agreements Illegality Under Statute Commercial Trust Under Profiteering Prevention Act 1920 (q)

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

Parties

J. Kitchen & Sons Pty. Ltd.

Appellant; Plaintiff

Stewart's Cash and Carry Stores

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract formed by the 'retailers' offer' was of indefinite duration or was determinable at will by either party
  2. 2 Whether the contract was void as an unreasonable restraint of trade
  3. 3 Whether the arrangement or the parties constituted a 'commercial trust' within the meaning of the Profiteering Prevention Act of 1920 (Q.) and rendered the contract illegal

Ratio Decidendi

Upon acceptance, a contract of indefinite duration arose that neither party could determine unilaterally except upon breach. The contract was not void as an unreasonable restraint of trade and did not constitute a commercial trust within the meaning of the Profiteering Prevention Act. The obligations under the agreement continued notwithstanding the source of the goods, and there was no illegality.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of Full Court set aside.
  • Judgment of Macrossan S.P.J. restored granting perpetual injunction against defendants.