McLaughlin v De Lauret [1910] HCA 64

McLaughlin v De Lauret [1910] HCA 64

No evidence was brought to the defendant that the plaintiff was prepared to pay for the shares and take delivery; nor did the agent’s authority to demand delivery on plaintiff’s behalf, or readiness to pay, become known to the defendant; therefore, there was no breach and defendant should be non-suited.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: John McLaughlin; Respondent; Plaintiff: Louise Guerry De Lauret
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1910
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdict for appellant (non-suit entered against plaintiff)
Legal Topics
Performance of Contract, Principal and Agent, Sale of Shares, Damages for Non Delivery
Contract Law Performance of Contract Principal and Agent Sale of Shares Damages for Non Delivery

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John McLaughlin

Appellant; Defendant

Louise Guerry De Lauret

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there evidence that the defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver shares?
  2. 2 Was there evidence that demand for delivery and readiness to pay were communicated to the defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

No evidence was brought to the defendant that the plaintiff was prepared to pay for the shares and take delivery; nor did the agent’s authority to demand delivery on plaintiff’s behalf, or readiness to pay, become known to the defendant; therefore, there was no breach and defendant should be non-suited.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdict for appellant (non-suit entered against plaintiff)

Orders

  • Judgment entered for appellant; non-suit granted against plaintiff