Carter v Schmitt & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1166

Carter v Schmitt & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1166

The letter of 27 June 2003, received within the contractual notice period and in the context of prior correspondence, would fairly be understood by the plaintiff and by a reasonable farmer or commercial person as the defendants exercising their option to renew. Long Howland was authorised to act as the defendants' agent in giving the notice, and clause 5 did not preclude notice being given by authorised solicitors. Clause 5 also did not prohibit receipt by an agent, and the parties' course of dealing showed that important matters under the sharefarming agreement were normally communicated between their solicitors, so service on Booth Brown Samuels & Olney as agents for Mr Carter was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Whether an Option to Renew a Sharefarming Agreement Was Validly Exercised / Determination of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Preliminary issues were determined in substance in favour of the defendants: subject to proof that they had duly performed and observed the agreement, the defendants validly exercised the option for a further term of three years. The issues of compliance with the agreement and costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['option to Renew' 'sharefarming Agreement' 'notice in Writing' 'service on Solicitors' 'agency' 'waiver and Estoppel']
['contract Law' 'property Law' 'agricultural Tenancies'] ['option to Renew' 'sharefarming Agreement' 'notice in Writing' 'service on Solicitors' 'agency' 'waiver and Estoppel']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Concerning Whether an Option to Renew a Sharefarming Agreement Was Validly Exercised / Determination of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether as a matter of construction the notice in the letter of 27 June 2003 was capable of constituting a valid exercise of the option to renew the sharefarming agreement.' "Whether Long Howland, as agents for the defendants, could permissibly give the written notice of exercise of the option to renew to Booth Brown Samuels & Olney, the plaintiff's solicitors." "If service by the defendants' solicitors on the plaintiff's solicitors was impermissible, whether the plaintiff had waived or was estopped from asserting that the letter of 27 June 2003 could not be given in that way."]

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 27 June 2003, received within the contractual notice period and in the context of prior correspondence, would fairly be understood by the plaintiff and by a reasonable farmer or commercial person as the defendants exercising their option to renew. Long Howland was authorised to act as the defendants' agent in giving the notice, and clause 5 did not preclude notice being given by authorised solicitors. Clause 5 also did not prohibit receipt by an agent, and the parties' course of dealing showed that important matters under the sharefarming agreement were normally communicated between their solicitors, so service on Booth Brown Samuels & Olney as agents for Mr Carter was...

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues were determined in substance in favour of the defendants: subject to proof that they had duly performed and observed the agreement, the defendants validly exercised the option for a further term of three years. The issues of compliance with the agreement and costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The question of costs was reserved for future argument.' 'Counsel were to arrange a further date with the Associate to settle short minutes and hear argument as to costs.']